Sancho Panza shares his views about the Munich Security Conference 2026

 

Gemini sa

Before we read the views of wise man Sancho Panza, we should

remember that there is a background of geopolitical dramatic

events that are unfolding on our world's stage. They are

represented by the dots below,

because some things are best left unsaid.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• The Squire’s Scrutiny: The Full Munich 2026 Interview

Location: A quiet corner of the Hotel Bayerischer Hof, Munich.

Date: February 15, 2026.

---

Interviewer: Señor Panza, you have spent the last few days among the most powerful people in the world. What is your humble opinion on the Munich Security Conference of 2026?

Sancho Panza: Well, sir, I’ll tell you: I’ve seen better organized goat-herding in the Sierra Morena. These great lords talk about a world "Under Destruction" as if they weren’t the ones holding the hammers! They speak of "Strategic Autonomy" like it’s a magical balsam, but from where I sit, it looks like they’re trying to build a stone wall with nothing but spit and good intentions. As the saying goes, "Between saying and doing, there is a long road," and these folks have been walking in circles since Friday.

Interviewer: There is much talk here about President Trump’s "genial" approach to solving global problems—the "Board of Peace," the $1 billion seats, and his "wrecking-ball" style of diplomacy. What does a man of the earth make of this "genius"?

Sancho Panza: [Sancho chuckles, leaning back in a chair that looks far too expensive for his frame.] "Genius," you say? Well, "every man is as God made him, and often a great deal worse." My master, Don Quixote de La Mancha, would call it enchantment, but I call it the way of the bold merchant. This President doesn't walk into a room to dance; he walks in to see who owns the floor and how much they’ll pay to keep standing on it.

He treats the world like a puzzle where the pieces are made of gold and iron. He sees a knot—like these old treaties—and instead of untying it with a thousand skilled fingers, he pulls out a pair of shears and snips it. It’s a "bulldozer" way of doing things. They call it "genial" because it’s fast, but as I’ve learned, a man who builds a house by knocking down the neighbor’s chimney shouldn't be surprised when the soot gets on his own carpet.

Interviewer: Secretary Marco Rubio gave a major speech about "Western Civilization." Some critics called it a "racist" tribute to white European culture. What did you hear?

Sancho Panza: I heard a man who knows how to wrap a hard stone in a velvet cloth. He spoke of Beethoven, the Beatles, and the "Christian faith" as if they were a shield against the rest of the world. Now, "every man thinks his own geese are swans," but when you start saying only your geese have the right to swim in the pond, people get nervous. To the folk from Africa and the islands, it didn't sound like a "tribute"; it sounded like a "Keep Out" sign. Whether it’s "racist" or just "exclusivist," he was drawing a circle in the dirt and telling the rest of the world they weren't invited to the dance.

Interviewer: Do you think Rubio was sincere in his "olive branch" to Europe? And what was Don Quixote’s reaction?

Sancho Panza: Sincere? "A man’s word is his bond, but a politician’s word is a rubber band." He’s "sincere" the way a wolf is sincere about wanting the sheep to stay healthy so there’s more meat on the bone. He likes the idea of Europe, as long as it’s a Europe that says "Yes, sir" to Washington.

As for Don Quixote, bless him, he was weeping in the balcony! He thinks Rubio is the "Knight of the Golden Fleece" come to restore Chivalry. He loved the talk of "faith" and "sacrifice." He actually tried to stand up and challenge the Chinese Minister to a duel right there for "threatening the sovereignty of the Eastern Isles"! I had to tell him that the "lance" Rubio was holding was actually a bill for 5% of the GDP, but Don Quixote won't hear it.

Interviewer: Speaking of the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi spoke soon after. How did the Europeans react to that clash?

Sancho Panza: It was like watching a cat follow a dog. Rubio tried to build a fortress; Wang Yi tried to build a bridge—or at least a bridge that leads straight to Beijing. The Europeans? That standing ovation they gave Rubio wasn't for his "genius"—it was a sigh of relief. They were so afraid a "Vance" would come and spit in their soup that they clapped for Rubio just because he didn't insult them. But they aren't fooled; they know they're caught between an American ally who treats them like children and a Chinese partner who treats them like a shop to be bought out.

Interviewer: Readers are deeply concerned about the "social disaster" in Cuba. Does that fit into this "genial" worldview?

Sancho Panza: [Sancho’s face darkens.] That is the part they don't put in the brochures. To solve the "problem" of a government he doesn't like, he’s turned off the lights for every grandmother in Havana. This "oil blockade" since January is pushing 11 million people into the dark. In Cuba, the hospitals are failing and the water pumps have stopped.

Here in Munich, they toast to "Sovereignty," but in Cuba, the "genial" hands in Washington are tightening a noose. It’s a very strange kind of "Peace"—like a doctor who cures a headache by chopping off the head. "To try to keep the sun from rising with a finger is a fool’s errand," and trying to bring "democracy" to Cuba by taking away their milk is a sin.

Interviewer: One final word, Sancho?

Sancho Panza: Only this: "He who lies down with dogs, rises up with fleas." You can’t cheer for "Genius" when it’s building a palace in DC and a graveyard in Havana. I’m going back to my village. Even a donkey knows that when the sky turns black, you don’t stand around debating the philosophy of the rain—you find a roof.

Munich and the future of European Security

 

What image will Europe project at the Munich conference?

By Victor Ângelo

My chronicle of January 30th underscored the importance of this year’s Munich conference, given the new reality of international security twelve months into the Trump Administration. The main message of my text was clear enough: international law must say no to brute force!

Now, with the conference running until Sunday, I believe it is important to reflect on security from a European perspective. In Munich, Europe must know how to demonstrate that it is truly willing to resolve and overcome its geopolitical fragility with concrete actions.

This first year of Donald Trump’s presidency has confirmed what the illegal, unjustified, and large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had already revealed: Europe is economically powerful and culturally and normatively influential, but strategically weak. In matters of security, it has depended fundamentally on the US and its vision of the world. With Trump’s arrival to power, Europe’s vulnerability and dependence on Washington regarding defence have become more evident.

In this context, the presence of Marco Rubio in Munich, heading a vast and influential American delegation, takes on a particular significance. At the 2025 conference, American Vice-President JD Vance made a name for himself by stating, among other shocking remarks, that the American commitment to European security was no longer unconditional. That having been said, Washington’s position may no longer need to be quite so disruptive now. Rubio represents a less coarse America, one that does not antagonise Europe in that manner. He merely considers it a fragmented, disoriented geopolitical actor with little weight—practically insignificant.

His speech will likely stick close to the following points: the responsibility for Europe's security is, above all, a European incumbency; European governments must invest more in defence, as committed at the NATO summit in June 2025; the Americans want more strategic clarity from the European side, which, in the US's understanding, would mean unhesitating alignment with the policies defined by Washington and effective engagement in Trump's initiative within the ineffable Peace Council. Rubio will not forget to mention that the Atlantic Alliance will continue to exist as long as its leadership is, in essence, dictated by US interests. He will also explain the alleged Russian-inspired peace plan that the American president wants to impose on Ukraine, including the unrealistic project of holding presidential elections in a country suffering a war of aggression day and night, an electoral process under the sound of Russian drums and missiles.

In truth, I do not believe Rubio will bring anything new from the West. It is the interventions of European leaders that will need to be listened to attentively.

There, I see increasingly clear and significant disagreements, particularly between France and Germany—divergences reflected in the contrasting visions of Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen.

For years, Macron has insisted on the need for a strategically autonomous Europe, capable of organising its own security while considering probable threats. This position was again reflected in the interview he gave this week to Le Monde and other major European newspapers. He does not diminish NATO, but he insists on a balance between the strategic interests of both sides of the Atlantic. For Macron, continued dependence on Washington is a disguised, yet real, form of subordination. Contrary to what others think, I believe Macron’s stance is not aimed at marking territory to eventually replace António Costa as President of the European Council in June 2027. In that area, Macron seems to have little chance.

Von der Leyen follows a more institutional approach, deeply shaped by German strategic choices. Her leadership, closer to Friedrich Merz, has been effective in achieving compromises in the field of defence industries and support for Ukraine. However, the President of the European Commission remains convinced of the need for our complementarity with the United States. For von der Leyen, European autonomy appears more as a reinforcement of the European pillar of NATO than as a parallel political project with hints of independence. It is a decision inspired by the German tradition of recent decades.

Macron thinks of Charles de Gaulle and reflects a Europe that has stopped believing in the American backstop. He bets on unity between the main European powers. Von der Leyen, meanwhile, fears the fractures that might emerge in crisis situations. She considers it indispensable to have an anchor point external to European rivalries. In reality, this may signify an acknowledgement of the fragility of the European project.

I fear that the Munich conference will display these discrepancies and convey an image of weakness to the delegation led by Rubio—and the conviction that the person truly in charge of European security is, after all, in the White House. This would be tragic for our common European project. Faced with Rubio, and through him, Donald Trump, Europe cannot limit itself to promising more spending. It must demonstrate unity, decision-making capacity, and moral strength in a new-old world, now dominated by powers that have once again ceased to value political ethics and international law.

A revised version about diplomacy in the era of algorithms

 Human Diplomacy or Machine Algorithms?

By Victor Ângelo
07 February 2026

We stand at a historical juncture where peace is imperilled not by technology alone, but by a failure of moral responsibility. Contemporary conflict is often framed as the inevitable outcome of systems—algorithms, predictive models, structural pressures—yet in truth it is the product of deliberate human choices, made by identifiable agents, with foreseeable human costs.

In the confrontation between the United States and Iran, the most alarming absence is not military capacity, but responsible leadership. Decisions that risk catastrophe are taken without public justification, without truthful articulation of intent, and without regard for those who will suffer. When international institutions hesitate to speak plainly, neutrality is abandoned, and moral confusion deepens.

The danger today is not simply missile launches or aircraft carriers. It is the weaponisation of perception. Digital tools are now routinely employed to distort judgment, saturate discourse with noise, and erode shared truth. This is not the dominion of machines. It is power exercised through machines. Algorithms do not deceive; they are designed to deceive, and responsibility cannot be outsourced to the tools themselves.

We must also confront the intellectual legacy of classical realist geopolitics, exemplified by Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. Their analyses, though superficially rigorous, converge in a troubling moral pattern: they reduce human beings to abstractions—territories, populations, strategic assets—while treating suffering as unavoidable. Cruelty becomes “strategically intelligible.” Such thinking cloaks moral abdication in prudential language, legitimising actions that would otherwise be indefensible. It encourages leaders to regard injustice as inevitable and to mistake fear, expediency, and resignation for wisdom. This is not realism; it is the suspension of moral attention. True leadership exercises power with strategic acumen and ethical discernment, recognising that decisions affect living, morally responsible human beings.

Viewed through Sun Tzu’s lens, our current predicament is a failure of perception and discernment. He teaches that the acme of strategy lies in winning without fighting, in understanding both adversary and self, and in recognising that appearances are deceptive. Delegating judgment to machines or treating human beings as data blinds us to intentions, vulnerabilities, and opportunities, and risks defeat before the first battle. Strategy divorced from moral and cognitive clarity is hollow, and victory achieved through ignorance is fleeting.

To treat calculation as a substitute for judgment is to embrace a dangerous fiction. When people are reconceived as “vectors of probability,” moral agency is displaced, and with it the possibility of justice. This is not realism; it is ethical abdication disguised as analytical rigor.

Peace has never been sustained by procedure alone. It depends on public virtues: truthfulness, courage, practical wisdom, and a just regard for human life. When these decay, diplomacy collapses into appeasement masquerading as restraint or escalation masquerading as necessity.

What is required is a Diplomacy of Resolve, not absence of negotiation, but presence of principled limits. It recognises that aggression carries unacceptable costs—not merely military, but moral, legal, and political. Red lines have meaning only when those who draw them intend to uphold them, and can justify them publicly.

Truthful description is essential. Naming repression is fidelity to reality, not provocation. Acknowledging fanaticism, whether theocratic or technocratic, is not the closure of dialogue, but its preservation from self-deception. Leadership today demands moral autonomy: resisting the cold logic of systems and judging actions by their human consequences. Algorithms optimised for efficiency or dominance cannot perceive suffering. Responsibility cannot be outsourced.

In an era of pervasive surveillance, defending inner freedom is a political imperative. Human dignity depends on preserving the capacity to respond to reality—to act, judge, and choose beyond what is predicted or coerced. Those who resist digital domination—journalists, dissidents, citizens defending privacy and truth—deserve support. Acts such as obfuscation are not mere technical tricks; they defend the interior space in which moral judgment is formed.

As Simone de Beauvoir reminded us, to will oneself free is also to will others free. Today, that freedom is threatened by the absolutism of theocracy and the reductionism of technocracy. Sovereignty must begin with the dignity of the citizen, defended not only against missiles and sanctions, but against the gradual erosion of moral agency by systems claiming neutrality while exercising control.

A diplomacy worthy of its name must be human-centred. It must resist the temptation to replace judgment with calculation, responsibility with procedure, and truth with spectacle. Peace will not be secured by better models alone, but by clearer vision, firmer virtue, and renewed attention to the lived reality of those affected by power.

In the end, the lessons of Sun Tzu, the imperatives of virtue, and the ethical demands of our digital age converge upon a single truth: strategy devoid of moral attention is self-defeating, power without conscience is hollow, and foresight without regard for human dignity is perilous. True leadership is measured not by the cleverness of algorithms or the precision of force, but by the courage to see clearly, to judge rightly, and to act in defence of the human spirit. In a world awash with data and dominated by machines of calculation, the most radical act remains profoundly simple: to place moral vision at the heart of every decision, and to preserve the freedom and dignity of the individuals for whom those decisions are made.

Victor Ângelo

Beyond the Algorithms: the Human Dimension

An Open Letter to my Readers: Human Diplomacy or Machine Algorithms?

07 February 2026

We find ourselves at a historical juncture where the traditional architecture of peace is not merely fractured—it is being rendered obsolete by a new and more insidious form of absolutism.

My recent analysis of the precipice upon which the United States and Iran now stand reveals a void where leadership ought to be. From the "lack of vigour" in the United Nations’ current leadership to the self-serving populism of regional autocrats, the "adults in the room" have effectively vacated the premises.

However, the peril we face extends beyond the formidable steel of the USS Abraham Lincoln or the multiple ballistic defiance of Tehran. We are witnessing the birth of a conflict defined by "the weaponisation of perception". We have entered the age of Digital Absolutism: a system where power no longer relies solely on the crude decree of a monarch, but on the "Black Box" of algorithmic certainty. It is a regime where those who control the data harvest the experience of the many to engineer the behaviour of all—transforming the citizen from an agent of history into a mere "vector of probability" to be predicted, nudged, or silenced.

In this "Century of Fear," as Albert Camus might have termed it, the battlefield intelligence has migrated to the digital architecture of our minds. Warfare is now waged through "false algorithms"—systems designed to saturate the decision-making process with noise, GPS spoofing that distorts the sovereignty of borders, and the mass production of misleading digital information that erodes the very possibility of a shared truth.

When I speak of the Iranian regime residing in the "Dark Ages," I refer to a fanaticism that has successfully harnessed 21st-century digital tools to enforce 16th-century repressions. Conversely, when I critique the Western response, I am inviting you to consider the "decline of courage" diagnosed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. By outsourcing our diplomacy to data-driven models and "humanitarian causes" devoid of political stature, we have allowed the human spirit to be categorised as a mere variable in a zero-sum game.

To counteract this paralysis, we must urgently pivot toward a "Diplomacy of Resolve." This is not the absence of war, but the active presence of a principled boundary. It rejects the passive "humanitarian-only" stance, moving instead toward a posture where negotiation is backed by a clear-eyed readiness to defend universal values. Unlike the "Diplomacy of Accommodation," which often descends into the appeasement of autocrats, a "diplomacy of resolve" operates on the understanding that peace is only sustainable when the cost of aggression is made unacceptably high—not just militarily, but morally and economically.

It is a commitment to "Truth-Telling" in an era of digital deception. It means calling a "Dark Age" regime by its name while simultaneously keeping the door to the negotiating table open. It is the courage to ensure that when we speak of "red lines," they are drawn in the ink of international law and defended with the collective will of nations that refuse to be bullied by either ballistic missiles or algorithmic manipulation and fake news.

The leadership required in the digital era is one that possesses the technical literacy to decode the "Permanent Lie" of digital propaganda, yet maintains the moral autonomy to override the cold, escalatory logic of the machine. We need leaders who understand that in an age of total surveillance, the most radical political act is the protection of Human Unpredictability. By this, I mean the preservation of the individual's capacity to act outside of a predetermined data set—the "divine spark" of spontaneity and moral choice that no algorithm can anticipate.

Algorithms optimized for escalation, for war and victory, see the closing of a trade artery as a logical necessity; they do not feel the "incalculable number of victims" of repression. If we are to escape this trap, we must move beyond the "shadow war" of digital deception. We require a diplomacy that is human-centric. 

To be clear, we must support the digital dissidents who use Obfuscation as a shield. Far from being a mere technical trick, Obfuscation is the deliberate injection of noise and "useful misinformation" into the surveillance engine; it is a vital act of digital guerrilla warfare that blinds the Demoniac Leviathan by making the individual's data unreadable and unpredictable, thereby reclaiming the right to a private, interior life.

As Simone de Beauvoir understood, "to will oneself free is also to will others free." Our freedom today depends on our ability to resist the Demons of both theocracy and technocracy. Sovereignty must begin with the dignity of the citizen, defended not just against Tomahawk missiles, but against the algorithmic erosion of the will and the soul. Let us demand a return to this diplomacy of resolve—one that prioritises the lived reality of individuals over the strategic abstractions of the codes defined by digital experts and extremists billionaires.

Respectfully,

Victor Ângelo