When liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman to join the U.S. Supreme Court, she was expected to bring a different view on racial matters than Justice Clarence Thomas, its only other Black member and a staunch conservative.

That dispute was front and center on Thursday when the two justices publicly battled in sharply worded, dueling opinions as the court, in a blockbuster decision, effectively ended affirmative action policies in which colleges and universities consider race as a factor in student admissions. Such policies have been used by many schools for decades to boost their numbers of Black and Hispanic students.

Jackson and Thomas, reflecting a deep divide in the United States, diverged on how race must be treated in the law. Jackson promoted its use to reduce entrenched inequalities. Thomas contended that the U.S. Constitution is colorblind.

Thomas wrote a concurring opinion accompanying the ruling that said Jackson's "race-infused world view falls flat at each step." Thomas suggested that instead of treating people as the sum of their experiences and challenges, Jackson myopically focuses on "racial determinism."

Jackson countered that it is Thomas who "demonstrates an obsession with race consciousness."

"Our country has never been colorblind," Jackson wrote in her dissenting opinion, which was joined by the two other liberal justices.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called the exchange "fascinating," noting that "they draw such different conclusions from the same history, even though both agree that Jim Crow (past segregation policies aimed at Black Americans in some states) and slavery were horrible forms of oppression at odds with Founding ideals."

"To some extent, the struggle that's going on is - who speaks for the Black community on this court?" Cornell Law School Professor Michael Dorf said. "Part of the undercurrent in his (Thomas's) response to Justice Jackson is that, 'She doesn't speak for all Black people, and she certainly doesn't speak for me.'"

The ruling - powered by the court's conservative majority and written by Chief Justice John Roberts - held that the Harvard and UNC policies violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which promises equal protection under the law. The provision was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War and the emancipation of Black people who had been enslaved by white people in Southern states.

'OSTRICH-LIKE'

Jackson, who was appointed last year by Democratic President Joe Biden, portrayed the ruling as "ostrich-like," one that would "make things worse," not better.

"The only way out of this morass - for all of us - is to stare at racial disparity unblinkingly, and then do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together, collectively striving to achieve true equality for all Americans," Jackson wrote.

"It is no small irony that the judgment the (court's) majority hands down today will forestall the end of race-based disparities in this country, making the colorblind world the majority wistfully touts much more difficult to accomplish," Jackson added.

Jackson traced the history of racism that persisted from slavery to the present day, preventing Black Americans from gaining wealth and excluding them from opportunities in education and professional life. Jackson noted, for example, that white families' median wealth is eight times that of Black families.

Jackson, 52, said the majority's decision will widen gaps between students and "delay the day that every American has an equal opportunity to thrive, regardless of race."

Thomas, who is 75 and has served on the court since 1991, delivered a defense of colorblindness - that the Constitution prohibits actions that treat minorities differently, regardless of their intent. Much of what Thomas wrote on Thursday was directed at Jackson.

"As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today," Thomas wrote.

"The panacea, she counsels, is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society's riches by racial means as necessary to 'level the playing field,' all as judged by racial metrics," Thomas added.

Thomas cited his personal experience in supporting his arguments: "Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race."

In a footnote to her dissent, Jackson responded to Thomas's critique, suggesting that he misconstrued her arguments.

"Justice Thomas ignited too many straw men to list, or fully extinguish," Jackson wrote.

Jackson added that Thomas refuses to see the "elephant in the room" - that race-based disparities continue to impede achievement for a great number of Americans.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

EU leaders back security commitments for Ukraine

European Union leaders declared on Thursday they would make long-term commitments to bolster Ukraine's security as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy urged them to start work on a new round of sanctions against Russia.

At a summit in Brussels, the leaders restated their condemnation of Russia's war against Ukraine and said the EU and its member countries "stand ready" to contribute to commitments that would help Ukraine defend itself in the long term.

In a text summarising the conclusions of the summit, the leaders said they would swiftly consider the form these commitments would take.

Josep Borrell, the bloc's foreign policy chief, suggested they could build on existing EU support, such as the European Peace Facility fund that has financed billions of euros in arms for Ukraine and a training mission for Ukrainian troops.

"The military support to Ukraine has to (be for the) long haul," Borrell told reporters, suggesting the EU could establish a Ukrainian Defence Fund, modelled on the Peace Facility.

"The training has to continue, the modernisation of the army has to continue. Ukraine needs our commitment to continue ensuring their security during the war and after the war," he added.

France - a champion of a greater security and defence role for the European Union - proposed the text, diplomats said.

But it was amended to accommodate concerns from militarily neutral countries and from staunch supporters of transatlantic cooperation such as the Baltic states, who see European security as mainly a matter for NATO, with a strong U.S. role.

The final text said the EU would contribute "together with partners" and "in full respect of the security and defence policy of certain Member States".

The EU's statement feeds into a discussion among NATO members and military powers such as the United States, Britain, France and Germany over measures to assure Ukraine that the West is committed to enhancing its security over the long term.

Ukraine has argued the best way to assure its own security and that of Europe is for it to join NATO. But Kyiv has acknowledged that is not possible during the war and NATO allies are divided over how quickly it could happen afterwards.

Addressing the EU leaders via video link, Zelenskiy thanked them for an 11th package of sanctions against Russia, which was approved earlier this month and aimed at stopping other countries and companies from circumventing existing measures.

"It is important not to stop imposing sanctions," he said, according to the text of his speech posted on the Ukrainian president's website.

"The fewer pauses there are, the less Russia will adapt to the pressure on it and the less it will think of ways to circumvent the sanctions," he said.

Zelenskiy also alluded to last weekend's abortive mutiny by the Wagner mercenary group in Russia.

"The weaker Russia is, and the more its bosses fear mutinies and uprisings, the more they will fear to irritate us. Russia's weakness will make it safe for others, and its defeat will solve the problem of this war," he said.

** Kremlin gives no detail on fate of 'General Armageddon' Surovikin after mercenary mutiny

The Kremlin declined on Thursday to give any details about the fate of Russian General Sergei Surovikin, whose status and location have not been made public since an abortive armed mutiny by mercenaries on Saturday.

Nicknamed "General Armageddon" by the Russian press for his aggressive tactics in Syria's war, Surovikin - who is a deputy commander of Russian forces in Ukraine - has been absent from view since Saturday, when he appeared in a video appealing to mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin to call off his mutiny.

Surovikin had looked exhausted in that video and it was unclear if he was speaking under duress. There have since been unconfirmed reports that he is being questioned by the security services.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov referred questions about Surovikin to the defence ministry, which has so far made no statement about him.

Asked by reporters if the Kremlin could clarify the situation with Surovikin, Peskov said: "No, unfortunately not.

"So I recommend that you contact the defence ministry; this is its prerogative."

When a reporter asked if President Vladimir Putin still trusted Surovikin, Peskov said: "He (Putin) is the supreme commander-in-chief and he works with the defence minister and with the chief of the General Staff."

Questions about "structural units within the ministry," Peskov said, should be addressed to the defence ministry.

The ministry did not reply to a Reuters request for clarity on the fate of Surovikin, one of Russia's most respected generals who previously commanded Russian forces in Ukraine for several months.

Russia's most senior generals have dropped out of public view in the wake of the mutiny aimed at toppling the top military brass, amid a drive by Putin to reassert his authority.

The mutiny, which Putin said could have tipped Russia into civil war, amounts to the biggest challenge to the Russian state since the 1991 hardline coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev as the Soviet Union crumbled.

Putin, Russia's paramount leader since 1999, thanked the army and law enforcement agencies for preventing what he said would have been devastating turmoil of the kind last seen after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

PUTIN, PRIGOZHIN

The 70-year-old former KGB spy was shown on Wednesday visiting a mosque at the ancient, pre-Arab Naryn-Kala citadel in the Derbent fortress on the shores of the Caspian Sea, around 2,000 km (1,240 miles) south of Moscow.

The Kremlin said Putin also chaired a meeting about the development of tourism in the region. Putin, pictured in sunglasses and without a tie, was shown speaking to local residents who took selfies with him.

The fate of Prigozhin, who rose to become Russia's most powerful mercenary, remains unclear.

A private jet linked to Prigozhin flew from St Petersburg, the former imperial capital of Russia, to Moscow on Thursday, though it was unclear who was on the aircraft.

The Kremlin's Peskov said he did not have information about Prigozhin's current location.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said this week that he had persuaded Putin not to "wipe out" Prigozhin, adding that the mercenary chief had flown to Belarus.

Speaking about the causes of the mutiny, Colonel-General Andrei Kartapolov, an influential lawmaker who chairs the lower house of parliament's defence committee, said Prigozhin had refused to sign contracts for his mercenaries to serve under the defence ministry.

As a result, Kartapolov said, Prigozhin had been told his mercenaries would no longer fight in Ukraine and no longer receive money from the Russian state.

Putin said on Tuesday that Prigozhin, Wagner and his Concord catering company had received at least $2 billion from the Russian state over the past year.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Ukraine outraged over Western expectations – Economist

Officials in Kiev are frustrated by western demands that they accelerate their counteroffensive against Russia, despite already using all available resources on the battlefield, the Economist reported on Wednesday, citing a Ukrainian intelligence source.

The outlet noted that the Ukrainian army had suffered heavy casualties during the first weeks of the widely-anticipated counteroffensive, without making any significant gains so far, prompting Ukrainian commanders to try to protect their depleted forces. 

Ukrainian officials hoped for swifter progress, but have since pointed to a number of obstacles, such as effective Russian aviation, large minefields and bad weather. 

The slow pace of the counteroffensive has reportedly started worrying Kiev’s Western backers, according to The Economist, with officials arguing that a lack of shock and momentum will cost more lives in the long run.

Politico also reported on Monday that certain Western officials have called Ukraine’s Armed Forces “too cautious” and are demanding that its troops hurry up and make significant battlefield gains soon. 

The unnamed Ukrainian intelligence source, however, told the Economist that such statements coming from the West are hypocritical. 

“Let me put this as diplomatically as I can,” he told the outlet. “Certain partners are telling us to go forward and fight violently, but they also take their time delivering the hardware and weapons we need.” 

Earlier this week, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba told top EU diplomats that Kiev needed more artillery systems and missiles. He also insisted on speeding up the training of Ukrainian pilots on advanced fighter jets, and called for more sanctions against Moscow.

Publicly, Western officials have pledged to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes” to defeat Russia. However, the slow progress and lack of results of Kiev’s counteroffensive could jeopardize future military assistance, the Financial Times has reported. 

Meanwhile, Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the continued delivery of Western weapons to Ukraine would fail to change the outcome of the conflict and only serve to prolong it and cause more unnecessary bloodshed.

** Russia’s strike on Kramatorsk eliminates two Ukrainian generals, 50 officers — top brass

Two Ukrainian generals and up to 50 officers along with about 20 foreign mercenaries and military advisers were eliminated in Russia’s strike on the Kiev forces’ deployment site in Kramatorsk, Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Lieutenant-General Igor Konashenkov reported on Thursday.

"According to the updated information, a June 27 precision strike on the temporary deployment site of the Ukrainian army’s 56th motorized infantry brigade in the city of Kramatorsk eliminated two generals, up to fifty officers of the Ukrainian armed forces and also up to twenty foreign mercenaries and military advisers who participated in a staff meeting," the spokesman said.

Reuters/RT/Tass

It doesn’t make sense to weigh tragedies on a scale. How do you measure them? Leo Tolstoy got it right in Anna Karenina when he said whereas all happy families are alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

And so indeed it was on June 14 when it was reported that a boat carrying 750 migrants had capsized near Greece in the Mediterranean killing over 500 with dozens missing. 

It was one of the most horrific tragedies in recent times, claiming the lives of hundreds of migrants mostly from Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and Palestine who put their lives in great danger in pursuit of the basic human instinct of looking for a better life.

A world becoming tragically familiar with migrant misery barely had time to shake its head in pity once again when news broke that a submarine, The Titan, operated by a US-based company, OceanGate, had imploded in the depths killing all five tourists on an expedition to the debris of the Titanic.

Two heart-wrenching tragedies in a space of days and yet the major global news networks could not resist reporting the tragedies on a scale of prejudice that barely disguised where their sympathy lies. 

The concerned world also rallied a multinational rescue mission for The Titan sparing neither expense nor expertise. The press provided minute-by-minute accounts of the efforts, looking for experts from around the world who had made similar missions in the past. Others got families of some of those on board to share their fears and hopes. 

How, for example, could anyone not be touched by the story of Suleman Dawood, the 19-year-old student who followed his millionaire father, Shazada, on that expedition to honour his Father’s Day wish? We were touched because the press shined a light on the human angle.

Who knows how many such stories among the hundreds of the families of the dead migrants have now gone untold? Interestingly, the Dawoods whose tragic story is still travelling the world, shared a similar Pakistani heritage with some migrants whose own stories will never be heard. 

As the search went on, the horrific deaths of the migrants in the Mediterranean fizzled from news flashes to scrolls of ticker tape and soon disappeared altogether.

From the way the networks covered the two accidents, you would be forgiven to think that they had weighed both and concluded that the lives of the 750 migrants mattered less, if they mattered at all. It was not an issue that the number of migrants who died in the Mediterranean on June 14 was over one-third of the fatality when RMS Titanic struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage in 1912.

Somehow, the unspoken message was that the migrants deserved their fate. What else did they want from Europe or the rest of the world? After all, in the last eight years or so, and long before the Russia-Ukraine war complicated things, Europe had opened its borders to an estimated 1.5 million migrant refugees. Yet, in spite of tighter border controls, controversial repatriations and deportations, the wave of migrants has been unrelenting.

Governments in Europe, especially in Italy and Greece, that spent years sleepwalking over a comprehensive plan to manage the migrant crisis have used rising domestic economic difficulties and the upsurge in right-wing groups in their countries as excuses for cracking down on migrants, sometimes, with the most cynical sea-border policing.

Since no deterrent appears to have worked so far (not unsanitary conditions, severe overcrowding, poor food and water quality, torture by guards or even reinforced barbed wires), the networks may well have deployed their own – a new set of filtering tools to cover the Mediterranean tragedy: downgrade the story if you can’t help it, otherwise turn a blind eye. 

Of course, it’s not the fault of the five victims who died in The Titan; it’s the fault of a system that treats people less than who they are because of where they are from, their skin colour – or let’s be honest – because of their economic conditions. 

It’s improbable that if the migrant boat were some ocean liner on a summer cruise of the Mediterranean an accident involving 750 passengers out of which 500 have been confirmed dead would be given the same shorthand coverage.

The double-standard between the wall-to-wall coverage of the implosion of The Titan and the short shrift that the deaths of over 500 migrants received at the hands of the global networks reecho the Shakespearean line about beggars, comets and the deaths of princes. Only that Shakespeare could not have seen that modern networks could sometimes make comets for their own princes.

The hypocritical coverage of both tragic incidents barely hides the fact that even though the deaths touched each affected family in a different way, the material condition of the dead was also a factor in how the tragedies were reported.

Former US President Barack Obama, perhaps one of the world’s most famous modern victims of right-wing calumny, called out the stark contrast, describing it as “obscene” and “untenable.” It’s an obscenity with a long history, one which in 1977 compelled UNESCO to set up the Sean MacBride Commission on North-South communication lopsidedness. 

On September 26, 2002, for example, an overcrowded Gambia-bound Senegalese ferry, Le Joola, hit a serious storm at night, killing 1,800 passengers, including the sister and 10 other relatives of the current coach of the Senegalese national football team, Aliou Cisse. Only 64 passengers survived. Cisse was saved on that day by a match for Birmingham City. It was a monumental tragedy, claiming more lives than were lost in RMS Titanic.

But that catastrophic event remained largely unreported then and remains, to date, one of the world’s most famous unlisted calamities on the global calendar. Only a BBC Africa documentary produced last year, on the 20th anniversary of the disaster and the pillars of the victims’ empty graves, remind us there was such a human tragedy!

This double-standard sometimes plays out in how help is deployed, after a humanitarian disaster. When the US sent help to Nigeria after catastrophic floods claimed over 600 lives last year, for example, it sent money - $1 million. When a devastating wildfire impacted New South Wales in Australia in late 2019, on the other hand, the US sent hundreds of firefighters. Sadly, three of them died helping.

To be fair, we can’t blame foreign countries or the major networks forever. If these countries and their networks are hostages to blinkered lenses in understanding and telling our story, journalists in the global south, including Africa, must also invest in telling their own stories themselves. 

And that does not have to be only when tragedies happen. Otherwise, neither tragedies nor heart-warming stories would have the touch, which as Tolstoy said, connects to us as humans in their own different, intimate ways.

** Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

Some people reach incredible heights in their careers because they happen to be the kind of creative genius who has the right idea at the right time. Most tech-whiz kids like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg fall into this bucket. 

But what if you're the kind of entrepreneur who wasn't lucky enough to think up the idea for Facebook in 2004 and is looking for a more step-by-step path to career greatness? Then you could do a lot worse than follow the example of Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. 

A lucky break and a fast climb 

Khosrowshahi started out with the advantage of coming from a storied family of business tycoons, but his initial forays into business didn't look too different from the path taken by many bright and ambitious young people.

After earning an engineering degree, he followed a girl he liked to New York City, where he landed a job as an analyst at Allen & Company. 

That's when things took an unusual turn. A few years later, he was still a junior employee tasked with running numbers for a huge deal by media mogul Barry Diller. When Diller demanded someone explain the numbers to him, Khosrowshahi's boss was sick and he found himself talking through his model with the billionaire. 

Impressed by Diller, Khosrowshahi soon made a jump to work for one of his companies. Once there, he became Diller's protégé, moving swiftly up the ranks of Diller's companies to eventually become CEO of Expedia. Then, in 2017, he left the company to work for Uber. 

While Khosrowshahi is extraordinarily successful, he's worked his way up based on business and personal canniness rather than Richard Branson-esque daring or Steve Jobs-level creative vision. What's his advice to young people looking to climb high and fast too? 

Plan less

According to a recent in-depth interview on the podcast Acquired (hat tip to Insider), Khosrowshahi's secret is simple – plan less.

"The most common mistake that I see in young people is that they over plan their career. 'Oh, I want to do X or I want to be vice president or I want to make so much money by a certain time,'" he said.

"And when you over plan your career, there's this human bias which is to look for a signal that agrees with the plan you have and ignore everything else that doesn't agree with it." 

That can cause you to miss incredible chances that are right in front of you.

"You never know what opportunities are going to come up. I planned to stay at Allen & Co. my whole life," he recalled, before recommending "being open to possibilities, being open to opportunities and then when you get that opportunity, going all in. Don't hedge. Do what's required of you and 50 percent more. Blow people away."

And keep your eyes open

There are plenty of reasons to think this is more than just the personal opinion of one particular rich guy. When LinkedIn surveyed members for their best career advice for young people, a similar theme came up again and again.

Sometimes too much planning keeps you from jumping in, learning, and seizing opportunities that crop up, professional after professional said. Instead, get out there, do, experiment, observe and adjust. 

Similarly, theorists of luck insist one of the biggest drivers of being a lucky person isn't just blind chance and hustle, it's the ability to spot luck when it's in front of you. This is referred to as "luck from awareness," if you have your head buried in a rigid five-year plan, you're unlikely to benefit from it. 

Last but certainly not least, President Obama was also recently asked about his advice for young people. He framed his thoughts differently – his takeaway boiled down to "get stuff done" – but Obama's underlying thinking had a lot in common with Khosrowshahi's.

Both men stress focusing on the work front of you now and giving it your all and caution against fixating on when and how you'll reach certain fancy-sounding milestones. 

All of these examples lead to the same takeaway for those starting out in their careers.

Planning has its place, of course, but it can actually be a distraction when you get to the point when you're spending more time thinking about the future than scanning the present for problems to fix and jobs to excel at.

As Khosrowshahi concludes, the best advice for young people is simple: "Keep your eyes open because you never know."  

Inc

Following the issuance of guidelines on contactless payments in the country, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) yesterday announced transaction limits above which verification and authorisation are required.

CBN explained that the restrictions were put in place in view of the risks associated with contactless payment.

As a result, the bank said the transaction limit for the payment innovation would be N15,000 while the daily cumulative limit was set at N50,000.

The apex bank disclosed this in a circular dated June 27, 2023, and signed by CBN Director, Payment System Management Department, Musa Jimoh, that was addressed to banks and Other Financial Institutions and Payment Service Providers.

CBN further disclosed that higher-value contactless payments – transactions that exceeded the stipulated limits – would require verification and authorisation to complete.

The bank added that for such transactions exceeding the limits, existing KYC requirements and limits on electronics payment channels shall apply.

It stated that limits above the stipulated daily cumulation shall be conducted through contact-based technology.

Also, CBN said the guidelines was in furtherance of its efforts to standardise operations in the payment system while encouraging the deployment of innovative products and sustaining financial system stability.

Essentially, contactless payment involves the consummation of financial transactions without physical contact between the payer and the acquiring devices and had been identified as an innovative payment option for the safe and efficient conduct of low-value and large-volume payments.

The innovation enables an alternative payment method whereby payment instruments were used without physical contact with devices.

The technology provides easy, convenient, and efficient cashless options for users.

CBN also listed examples of contactless payment instruments including pre-paid debit and credit cards, stickers, fobs, wearable devices, tokens, and mobile electronic devices.

According to the bank, the framework was conceived to ensure that participants in contactless payments implement appropriate risk management processes and measures while keeping to the best relevant standards.

Contactless-enabled payment terminals interact with contactless payment devices to facilitate payments.

The framework, however, mandated stakeholders to comply with the provisions of the guidelines and relevant regulations of the bank.

The CBN, among other things, warned that non-adherence to these provisions shall attract appropriate sanctions and penalties as may be determined by the bank.

Thisday

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russian general Surovikin was sympathetic towards Wagner rebellion, US officials say

General Sergei Surovikin, deputy commander of Russia's military operations in Ukraine, was sympathetic to mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin's weekend rebellion, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, though it was unclear if he actively supported it.

Prigozhin startled the world by leading an armed revolt on Saturday that brought his Wagner Group fighters from the Ukrainian border to within 200 kilometers (125 miles) of Moscow before he abruptly called off the uprising.

Three officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Surovikin had been in support of Prigozhin but Western intelligence did not know with certainty if he had helped the rebellion in any way.

As the rebellion began, Surovikin publicly urged fighters of the Wagner private militia to give up their opposition to the military leadership and return to their bases.

"I urge you to stop," Surovikin had said in a video posted on Telegram messaging app, his right hand resting on a rifle.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Surovikin had advance knowledge that Prigozhin was planning a rebellion.

The Kremlin, asked on Wednesday about the report, said there would be "a lot of speculation" in the aftermath of the events.

Surovikin, nicknamed "General Armageddon" by the Russian media for his reputed ruthlessness, is a veteran of wars in Chechnya and Syria who has been decorated by President Vladimir Putin.

In October, Surovikin was put in charge of the military campaign in Ukraine but was moved into a deputy role earlier this year after Russia's limited success in the invasion.

Prigozhin, a one-time Putin ally, in recent months has carried out an increasingly bitter feud with Moscow, including publicly saying his troops were not being provided enough weapons by the Russian ministry of defense.

U.S. officials and Western officials said Prigozhin had been stockpiling weaponry ahead of the mutiny attempt. The U.S. officials suggested he must have believed he had enough firepower and sympathy within the Russian military to carry out his uprising.

Still, a Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Prigozhin ultimately miscalculated by believing that his loyalty to Putin, his usefulness to the Kremlin and his support among Russian military officials would be enough to insulate him from consequences.

Putin initially vowed to crush the mutiny, comparing it to the wartime turmoil that ushered in the revolutions of 1917 and then a civil war, but hours later a deal was clinched to allow Prigozhin and some of his fighters to go to Belarus.

**EU leaders to debate Russia mutiny, pledge support for Ukraine

European Union leaders will on Thursday debate the repercussions of the aborted mutiny in Russia as they pledge further support for Ukraine in its war against Moscow's invasion.

At a summit in Brussels, the leaders will also talk with NATO boss Jens Stoltenberg and discuss what role the EU could play in Western commitments to bolster Ukraine's security.

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said the leaders were certain to discuss Saturday's dramatic abandoned mutiny by the Wagner mercenary group, even though it is not on the agenda of the summit or mentioned in drafts of its written conclusions.

"It will definitely come up," she told reporters in Brussels on the eve of the two-day summit, a regular gathering that will also discuss migration, relations with China and other issues.

Like several other EU leaders, Kallas said the mutiny showed cracks appearing in Russia's leadership. She said she had seen different views on how the mutiny could affect the Ukraine war and the risk Russia poses to the West.

The West should not be swayed and continue to support Ukraine and bolster its own defences, Kallas said.

Charles Michel, the president of the European Council of EU leaders, struck a similar note.

"Ever more in these circumstances, we will reassert our commitment to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, including through sustainable financial and military assistance," he wrote in a letter inviting leaders to the summit.

SECURITY PACKAGE

The nature of that assistance will also be on the table in Brussels as Western countries work on a package of long-term assurances to provide weapons, equipment, ammunition, training and other military aid to Kyiv.

A draft of the summit conclusions said EU countries were ready to contribute to future security commitments to Ukraine, to "help Ukraine defend itself in the long term, deter acts of aggression and resist destabilisation efforts."

Diplomats said the text had been proposed by France, a champion of a greater military and security role for the EU.

Diplomats from some countries said they wanted more details and were concerned the idea may conflict with efforts involving the United States and NATO on long-term commitments to Ukraine.

“There are many questions for many member states,” said a diplomat from one EU country.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Countries including the U.S., Britain, France and Germany are discussing such measures ahead of a NATO summit next month in Vilnius, Lithuania, where Ukraine's long-term security will be a major theme.

France has insisted any EU contribution would dovetail with those made by others and build on existing EU initiatives.

These include the European Peace Facility, a fund that reimburses EU members for military donations to Kyiv, and a training mission for Ukrainian soldiers.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Only 11% of Russians back call to use nuclear weapons – survey

The absolute majority of people in Russia oppose the idea of Moscow using nuclear weapons against Ukraine in the ongoing conflict, according to a fresh poll conducted by the media outlet RTVI and the Russian Field polling agency. Almost three quarters of respondents (74%) said that a nuclear option is “unacceptable” regardless of the situation on the battlefield, RTVI reported on Wednesday.

Only 10% of Russians said the use of nuclear weapons was “acceptable” at any moment, while another 5% said such a step could only be made in the face of a real risk of defeat. Some five percent of respondents provided no clear answer to this question.

Men, middle-aged and older Russians appeared to be more supportive of a nuclear option, according to the survey. Respondents with higher education and those perceiving the ongoing conflict as a potential threat to their personal security tend to oppose it.

Meanwhile, a majority of Russians expressed their readiness to aid the Russian forces fighting on the frontlines. According to the survey, 61% of respondents said they were ready to do so and almost 40% told the surveyors they had already provided some aid to the military at least once, through various aid and support programs. Almost 30% also collected clothes and various useful items for the soldiers.

The issue of a potential nuclear strike has briefly come into the spotlight in Russia after political scientist Sergey Karaganov raised such a possibility in an opinion piece.

In the article titled ‘A Difficult But Necessary Decision’, Karaganov argued that Russia could escalate to using nuclear weapons against European countries supporting Ukraine, in order to force the US and its allies to back off from a wider conflict with Russia and thus prevent a global nuclear war and World War 3.

In mid-June, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that even discussing of the issue lowers the threshold for a potential nuclear arms use. Under the current official doctrine, Russia will only utilize its atomic arsenal if faced with an existential threat, the president said at that time, adding that he also did not believe in using tactical, low-yield nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

** Russian Battlegroup Center hits eight area of concentration of Ukrainian troops

Warplanes of Russia’s Battlegroup Center delivered airstrikes on eight areas of the deployment of Ukrainian troops and artillery, the battlegroup’s spokesman Alexander Savchuk told TASS on Thursday.

"Su-25 fighter jets of the Battlegroup Center delivered rocket strikes on eight areas where Ukrainian manpower and artillery were concentrated. Apart from that, crews of Su-34 warplanes delivered strikes on two enemy centers of temporary deployment, one stronghold, and a communications point," he said.

According to the spokesman, a Fury drone was shot down from a Tor-M1 air defense system in the Krasny Liman area. Apart from that, in his words, the enemy artillery and mortar positions were hit by Russian forces in the course of counterbattery activities. "Enemy armored combat vehicles, an armored infantry carrier and five pickup trucks, as well as manpower were hit by artillery," Savchuk said.

Reuters/RT/Tass

Islamists wield hidden hand in Sudan conflict, military sources say

Thousands of men who worked as intelligence operatives under former president Omar al-Bashir and have ties to his Islamist movement are fighting alongside the army in Sudan's war, three military sources and one intelligence source said, complicating efforts to end the bloodshed.

The army and a paramilitary force have been battling each other in Khartoum, Darfur and elsewhere for 10 weeks in Africa's third largest country by area, displacing 2.5 million people, causing a humanitarian crisis and threatening to destabilise the region. Reinforcements for either side could deepen the conflict.

The army has long denied accusations by its rivals in the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that it depends on discredited loyalists of Bashir, an Islamist long shunned by the West, who was toppled during a popular uprising in 2019.

In response to a question from Reuters for this article, an army official said: "The Sudanese army has no relation with any political party or ideologue. It is a professional institution."

Yet the three military sources and an intelligence source said thousands of Islamists were battling alongside the army.

"Around 6,000 members of the intelligence agency joined the army several weeks before the conflict," said a military official familiar with the army's operations, speaking on condition on anonymity.

"They are fighting to save the country."

Former officials of the country's now-disbanded National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS), a powerful institution composed mainly of Islamists, confirmed these numbers.

An Islamist resurgence in Sudan could complicate how regional powers deal with the army, hamper any move towards civilian rule and ultimately set the country, which once hosted al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, on a path for more internal conflict and international isolation.

Reuters spoke to 10 sources for this article, including military and intelligence sources and several Islamists.

In a development indicative of Islamist involvement, an Islamist fighter named Mohammed al-Fadl was killed this month in clashes between RSF forces and the army, said family members and Islamists. He had been fighting alongside the army, they said.

Ali Karti, secretary general of Sudan's main Islamic organisation, sent a statement of condolences for al-Fadl.

'OUR IDENTITY AND OUR RELIGION'

"We are fighting and supporting the army to protect our country from external intervention and keep our identity and our religion," said one Islamist fighting alongside the army.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Bashir's former ruling National Congress Party said in a statement it had no ties to the fighting and only backed the army politically.

The army accused the RSF of promoting Islamists and former regime loyalists in their top ranks, a charge the RSF denied. Army chief Abdel Fattah Burhan, who analysts see as a non-ideological army man, has publicly dismissed claims that Islamists are helping his forces. "Where are they?" he cried out to cheering troops in a video posted in May.

The military, which under Bashir had many Islamist officers, has been a dominant force in Sudan for decades, staging coups, fighting internal wars and amassing economic holdings.

But following the overthrow of Bashir, Burhan developed good ties with states that have worked against Islamists in the region, notably the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Gulf states provided Khartoum with significant aid.

Nowadays, former NISS officers also help the military by collecting intelligence on its enemies in the latest conflict. The NISS was replaced by the General Intelligence Service (GIS) after Bashir was toppled, and stripped of its armed "operations" unit, according to a constitutional agreement.

Most of the men from that unit have sided with the army, but some former operations unit members and Islamists who served under Bashir entered the RSF, one army source and one intelligence source said.

"We are working in a very hard situation on the ground to back up the army, especially with information about RSF troops and their deployment," said a GIS official.

BASHIR-ERA VETERANS

The army outnumbers the RSF nationally, but analysts say it has little capacity for street fighting because it outsourced previous wars in remote regions to militias. Those militias include the "Janjaweed" that helped crush an insurgency in Darfur and later developed into the RSF.

Nimble RSF units have occupied large areas of Khartoum and this week took control of the main base of the Central Reserve Police, a force that the army had deployed in ground combat in the capital. They seized large amounts of weaponry.

But the army, which has depended mainly on air strikes and heavy artillery, could benefit from GIS intelligence gathering skills honed over decades as it tries to root out the RSF.

On June 7, fire engulfed the intelligence headquarters in a disputed area in central Khartoum. Both sides accused the other of attacking the building.

After Burhan and RSF leader General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, carried out a coup in 2021 which derailed a transition to democracy, Hemedti said the move was a mistake and warned it would encourage Islamists to seek power.

Regional heavyweights Saudi Arabia and the UAE had seen Sudan's transition towards democracy as a way to counter Islamist influence in the region, which they consider a threat.

Publicly, the army has asserted its loyalty to the uprising that ousted Bashir in 2019.

But after the military staged a coup in 2021 that provoked a resurgence of mass street protests, it leaned on Bashir-era veterans to keep the country running. A taskforce that had been working to dismantle the former ruling system was disbanded.

Before the outbreak of violence, Bashir supporters had been lobbyingagainst a plan for a transition to elections under a civilian government. Disputes over the chain of command and the structure of the military under the plan triggered the fighting.

About a week after fighting broke out in April, a video on social media showed about a dozen former intelligence officials in army uniforms announcing themselves as reserve forces.

The footage could not be independently verified by Reuters.

Several senior Bashir loyalists walked free from prison in Bahri, across the Nile from central Khartoum, during a wider prison break amid fighting in late April. The circumstances of their release remain unclear. Bashir is in a military hospital.

Reuters

Shortly after his investiture as the new Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, proclaimed that he felt like a tiger ready to chase away criminals in the country. Despite the jeers he received from those who wondered if he has a multiple personality disorder, the man’s point is well-understood. It is that feeling of exhilaration that accompanies being imbued with administrative political powers. Besides, through both physical and metaphysical means, humans have always sought to extend the limits of their abilities by appropriating the attributes of animals. So, I will take him up on his metaphor to ask him what kind of tiger he plans to be in office: a paper tiger or Tiger Woods? Only one of those options has made a historical impact and Egbetokun must quickly clarify his choices to himself now that the duty to secure justice for another Nigerian over supposed blasphemy calls on him.

On Sunday, a mob accused and killed a butcher, Usman Buda. The unfortunate incident was eerily reminiscent of the lynching of Deborah Samuel in that same town just a year ago. Her vile murderers were so confident they put their own faces on video. The police responded to the attendant public outrage by arresting and charging two suspects, Bilyaminu Aliyu and Aminu Hukunci, to court. For a moment, it seemed justice would prevail and those who carry out such crimes would have their privilege undercut. Unfortunately, that never happened. Last month, Aliyu and Hukunci were freed because, according to court documents, the police prosecutors absconded from the trial.

Their cowardly retraction from confronting the fanatics that killed Samuel was worse. By starting what they could not finish, the police emboldened those who would kill again over such spuriousness. If Egbetokun’s immanent raging beast raring to go all out against those who diminish our citizenry wants to proclaim his tigritude, he should consider revisiting Samuel’s case. If Egbetokun does not want to end up as another tiger in a gilded cage that cannot bare its claws, he should stand up for Buda too. These two cases afford him a chance to stand up to the cowards who take lives cheaply because they have been nurtured to believe they can determine who should live or die.

If there is anything Buda’s case should teach the faux liberals who, in the wake of Samuel’s killing, urged us to “respect other people’s religious beliefs,” it is that one can never try enough to please those who have arrogated the power over one’s life to themselves. All it takes to kill you is their wanting to kill you. They will do it because they know that no law in Nigeria restrains them. Sorry, some laws proscribe lynching, but those who should enforce it will rather avoid it. To confront lynching incidents is to challenge the nation’s ideological fault lines cracked by the compounding of regional and religious identities.

You know how badly the police have been cowed when an alleged lawyer blackmailed them into arresting Mubarak Bala for his atheistic views and they capitulated. Imagine a world where a random guy with a law degree has the effrontery to petition the police and demand they clamp down on someone’s rights to freedom of thought and expression. The police not only ran this petitioner’s errand, but they also disobeyed the court order that mandated them to release Bala. Ideally, the police should have set the petitioner and his cohort straight by pointing out to them an atheist has the democratic right to proclaim his non-belief the same way they proclaim their beliefs, but no, they were too fearful of mob action.

Nigeria has had one too many instances of people taking religious offence and ascribing the power to mete out violence to themselves. These people have neither understanding nor respect for other people’s democratic freedoms. Nigeria, unfortunately, condones their barbarism. Those who try to downplay religious killings by pointing out that they are no different from the regular violence one can experience on the streets in Nigeria willfully forget that this crime is unique because of politics. Lynching in the name of God is a crime indulged by people in high places who cannot risk their political capital. We were all here when a presidential candidate who initially condemned the killing of Deborah eventually withdrew his sympathies. Some loose-nuts-and-bolts-in-the-head threatened they would not vote for him in the elections for daring to speak out against their barbarism, and he backtracked.

That pattern of refraining from the path of justice so as not to offend the voting mob has been consistent. Some religious and political agents who condemned the lynching of Buda could not just bring themselves to hit the nail on the right part of the head. For instance, Sokoto governor Ahmed Aliyu issued a press release where he asked the people to be calm and law-abiding. He said, “I want to call on the people of Sokoto State to avoid taking laws into their hands, instead, report any alleged crime or blasphemy to the appropriate quarters for necessary action. Our religion does not encourage taking laws into one’s hand, so let us try to be good followers of our religion.”

An Islamic rights advocacy group, the Muslim Rights Concern of Sokoto went as far as condemning the lynching of Buda but still upheld the erroneous idea that something called “blasphemy” is punishable. They said, “Islam does not allow people to do what they like or take laws into their hands as they deem fit. It is only the courts (Shariah and common law courts) that have powers to execute offenders after proving them guilty through fair trial.”

The question for both the governor and MURIC is the law under reference here. Which law are these maniacs taking into their dirty hands? They are sheer murderers, simple. By construing their crime as “taking the law into their hands,” you make it seem they have a legitimate grouse that only needed appropriate channelling. Look, the whole idea of blasphemy might have made sense in medieval times, but it has no basis to stand in our modern times. Some religious laws were designed for an era when people’s eyes were still on their knees, and they are no longer tenable in the 21st century. You cannot kill people because their (ir)religious views offend you. The best you can do is to obey religious laws for yourself as a private individual. For instance, if a butcher says things you consider a negation of what you believe, your freedom to respond accordingly could go as far as dissociation. While you are free to never buy meat from them forever, you cannot coerce their beliefs without violating their inalienable right to thought and expression.

Nigeria should have long taken charge against blasphemy accusations and the concomitant vigilantism. They should have disallowed even Sharia courts from pronouncing death sentences for it (or for any reason). These acts are unconstitutional, negate democratic tenets, and outrightly barbaric. They cannot stand. Those that killed Buda and others did not “take any law into their hands” because there is no law proscribing blasphemy anyone is constitutionally bound to obey.

If the IG is serious about displaying some savagery against Nigeria’s enemies, this is his opportunity. This case is his chance to inscribe the integrity of the law because it is about belief—not just in God or any supernatural being—but in Nigeria as a political entity. This is ultimately about belief in democracy, the rule of law, and the rights of citizenship which it grants. If those who killed Buda are—once again—allowed to get away with their crime, you would have legitimised their conflicting vision of the ruling order of the nation.

Punch

Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed paper-thin solar cells that can be attached to any kind of surface to convert it into a power source. 

Thinner than human hair, these cells could be laminated onto various kinds of surfaces, such as the sails of a boat to provide power while at sea, onto tents and tarps that are deployed in disaster recovery operations, or onto the wings of drones to extend their flying range.

The findings were first published in the journal Small Methods in a paper co-authored by Vladimir Bulović, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT, Mayuran Saravanapavanantham, an electrical engineering and computer science graduate student at MIT, and Jeremiah Mwaura, a research scientist in the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics.

Scientists used electronic printable inks, using a technique similar to how designs are printed on t-shirts. As these thin solar cells are difficult to handle and can tear easily, scientists searched for a lightweight, flexible, and resilient material that could adhere to those solar cells. The fabric they chose was Dyneema Composite Fabric, a material known for its incredible strength. 

After printing the electrodes on a flat sheet of plastic, they glued the sheet of plastic on Dyneema. Lastly, they peeled away the fabric, which has picked up the electrodes, leaving a clean sheet of plastic behind. 

“While it might appear simpler to just print the solar cells directly on the fabric, this would limit the selection of possible fabrics or other receiving surfaces to the ones that are chemically and thermally compatible with all the processing steps needed to make the devices,” Saravanapavanantham told MIT News. “Our approach decouples the solar cell manufacturing from its final integration.”

Although the cells can only generate half the energy per unit area compared to traditional silicon panels, they can generate 18 times more power per kilogram, Fast Company reported.

During testing, the solar cells generated about 730 watts per kilogram of energy freestanding and about 370 watts per kilogram if deployed on Dyneema fabric. For reference, it would only add about 44 pounds to the roof to generate the same amount of power as an 8,000-watt traditional solar installation on a home in Massachusetts, as MIT News reported.

The scientists are aiming to make solar energy more accessible and portable to be used where traditional solar panels cannot instead of replacing them entirely. 

“My expectation would be that the format of these new cells should allow us to completely rethink how rapidly we can deploy solar cells, and how rapidly we can manufacture solar cells,” Bulović told Fast Company. “In the long run, we think this can be as rapid as printing a newspaper.” 

As the demand for clean and renewable energy grows, this technologycould revolutionize solar energy by making it more accessible. 

The Cool Down

When were you last lied to? To your knowledge, obviously. Was the lie something that mattered? Was the liar convincing? Did they confess, or did you find them out? And how did you react? Maybe with anger. Maybe with hurt bemusement. Or contempt – like my grandmother, who had a stock retort for anyone who tried to pull the wool over her eyes: “I hate liars. They’re worse than thieves.”

Did you feel, afterwards, that you’d been easy to fool? If so, you’d be in good company. It’s the norm to assume communication is honest – and that’s something to be thankful for, because we’d live in a miserable, suspicious world otherwise. Less helpfully, it’s common to assume that body language gives away dishonesty when it does arise. Liars look shifty, in the popular imagination. They cough before they speak, fidget and don’t look you in the eye. Unfortunately, none of these cues are very reliable.

People who convince themselves of their own truthfulness while being dishonest may act no differently to normal. The weight of empirical research shows it’s hard to identify even very purposeful liars from their behaviour. A meta-analysis from 2006, “Accuracy of Deception Judgments”, by social psychologist Charles F Bond of Texas Christian University and others, looked at more than 200 studies to find that people’s accuracy when distinguishing truth from lies isn’t much better than chance. A more recent review, 2019’s “Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception”, led by Aldert Vrij of the University of Portsmouth, hammered home the point. People are mediocre judges of deception. This seems to be true generally, but the question of who we might find believable, and why, gets more complicated within certain relationship dynamics.

I once knew a woman, Julia, who by any measure was attractive and charming. She seemed a kind, sympathetic listener. She was generous with cake, hugs and praise. I loved her for all these things, yet I often felt guarded in her company for reasons I could neither put words to nor think about clearly. Her compliments were so warm one could feel dizzied. Within such a context, if she made improbable claims people tended to take them at face value. I know I did.

Her believability was filtered through a troubling pattern of behaviour. Sometimes she’d persuade me I had said things I didn’t remember saying. Other times she’d persuade me I’d imagined things she’d said. She would advise me on a practical problem – emphatically, in detail and with certainty, because she had a love of organisation – and I’d follow her guidance. Months later, she would express dismay at my choices and ask what had driven them. Over time my trust in my judgment eroded. If I was so very forgetful, I couldn’t rely on my own perceptions; I could barely feel them through a mental fog. She had the same effect on other people.

Within this fog, Julia said extreme things about people I knew – Cathy was mistreating a pet, Daniel was ripping off his mother, Pamela kept taking Julia’s belongings for use in a stalkerish shrine. I privileged Julia’s perception over my own, until I had distorted views of Cathy, Daniel and Pamela.

One day, the leopard ate my face. I learned Julia had been discussing my health with people. Under the pretext of concern, she’d claimed I had a range of illnesses, physical and mental, that I’ve never suffered from or matched criteria for. They included stigmatised conditions that people usually have strong reactions to. What she said was untrue. I asked a few of Julia’s other contacts if we could compare notes. We discovered Julia had set us against each other with a complicated web of falsehoods. Several relationships had broken down, extracting a painful toll from those involved.

The moment Julia realised we were on to her, she severed ties. She never explained her behaviour, nor could I tell whether she believed her own contradictory and false accounts in the moment of giving them. I have guesses, but I’m more interested in how the rest of us responded to her growing implausibility. As a rule, she was believed.

Anyone online these days is likely to have encountered the idea of gaslighting, or denying a shared reality, to manipulate someone into questioning their senses. The most effective gaslighters I’ve met also seemed more likely to be believed when they told common-or-garden lies, with one strategy supporting the other. After all, a gaslighter can isolate victims more effectively if their more basic lies are readily accepted by outsiders. Who the liar is – rather than what they’re saying – factors into their success, because humans are unfortunately prone to cognitive bias. Perceived credibility can be gendered and racialised. It’s also influenced by what psychologists call halo errors; we expect people to be truthful when we like them. Good looks, hospitality and generosity with compliments (at least to one’s face) are qualities that can buy undeserved leeway, without consciously being weighed in the balance.

Normal desire for connection can also muddy the waters. Take a situation such as friends sharing gossip. For the purposes of psychological research, gossip is often defined as unsubstantiated personal chat rather than as malicious activity per se. According to a recent review of evidence, “When and Why Does Gossip Increase Prosocial Behavior?”, led by Annika S Nieper of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, gossip can benefit your wider social group – provided the content is true. Anthropologists such as Robin Dunbar and Max Gluckman before him, have argued that gossip plays a part in forging social bonds. Sharing an inside scoop flatters the receiver because it implies trust, belonging or even, in whisper networks, the urge to protect. Such an exchange involves powerful feelings that serve a purpose when the whispers are accurate; but can be readily exploited by a liar. The flipside of heightened intimacy is lowered guards. Drama and mess can feel pleasurable, in a queasy way; it’s tempting to roll with a compelling story from a friend.

While I was writing my latest novel – a supernatural horror set in a 1920s hotel – I kept coming back to why we believe some people even as they make extraordinary, unsupportable claims. (Gothic fiction in general is littered with unreliable narrators, doubles and people not being quite what they seem.) The characters in my novel include a young woman who fakes clairvoyant visions to express socially unacceptable feelings, and a psychoanalyst who is skilled at “paltering”, or the use of factual statements to mislead. The ease with which the clairvoyant cons her audience inspires a little jealousy in the psychoanalyst, who bitterly comments that the audience must want to be deceived. In context, the line is meant to be an example of bad-faith victim-blaming. It’s also a stance that victims of deception can internalise; they may feel gullible to a fault once the lie comes to light, or even fear they had a vested interest in the ruse.

But rather than wanting to be deceived, there is a sadder explanation for extending the benefit of the doubt, at least in situations where warning signs can’t penetrate the fog. Freud wrote of disavowal: minimising a reality that we can’t tolerate. Some truths are painful and we protect ourselves from them by proceeding in a conflicted state of knowing and not-knowing. Julia was deeply familiar to me. I loved her, and valued the nurturing persona she cultivated. So, along with everyone else, I smiled at her exaggerations, while I pushed to the back of my mind her more disturbing capacity for damage. This is why, when I learned how she had misrepresented me, I felt something wordless I’d always known about her was finally in full view.

Being lied to can impair trust in several ways that outlast the original harm. First, and most obvious, is an ongoing suspicion that other people don’t mean what they say. This is both understandable and a distortion. Several studies show that telling one or two white lies a day is common, but the percentage of people who lie prolifically is estimated in single figures. Second, and more subtly, there is the disturbing knowledge that people in general, good people, struggle at lie detection. In a conflict, they cannot be relied upon to back an honest person over a liar. Third, you may lose confidence in your own judgment, and it has to be re-earned. The best course of action, it seems to me, is to attend to any sense of being divided against oneself. Confusing, wordless unease at the back of one’s mind should be pulled into the light as a matter of course.

A tricky balance must be struck between the kind of dignity my grandmother once showed – when telling a liar to sling his hook – and faith in humanity, because the desire not to be fooled again can go badly astray. There’s a comforting simplicity to viewing everyone sceptically: a liar won’t get through and no one else will, either. What helps me is knowing how very much better my life has been without Julia in it. Outside her influence, optimism is easier, which includes realising most people are honest – and deserve to be met as such.

The Guardian, UK