Asking a few questions

A very unusual year: where are we heading to?

Victor Angelo

 

The Russian Armed Forces are currently firing thousands of shells a day at Ukraine. My friend Zulmiro, who is, and always has been, a primary communist militant, is not bothered by this volume of daily destruction. For him, every Ukrainian is a Nazi. Although he cannot explain the concept of Nazism in the year 2022, the accusation, imprecise as it is, justifies everything and tidies up the matter. It is impossible to argue with him, despite many decades of friendship. In view of this, and moving to a more general level, I ask how it will be possible to launch a process of negotiations between the Ukrainian leadership and Zulmiro's idols in the Holy of Holies, the Kremlin? That is one of the big questions of the moment. There is talk of diplomacy, but that, what does it mean?

Meanwhile, the Russian gamble continues to be on force, terror, and violation of the international order. Vladimir Putin and his men want the annihilation of the Ukrainian state and the surrender of its leaders. To achieve this, they will continue to machine gun and wipe out Ukraine. Systematically and intensely, with total inhumanity and a great sense of urgency, to weaken the Ukrainians' capacity for resistance and legitimate defence to the utmost before the promised arms arrive from Western countries.

Many do not want to look seriously at the question of self-defence, preferring, on our side, the comfortable ambiguity proper to nations well established in life. On the one hand, we help the victim and, on the other, we try not to harass the aggressor beyond the limits that could jeopardise our peace of mind. We keep repeating that we are not at war with the Putin regime, a half-truth which certainly makes him laugh with irony. He is at war with us, and he knows that the wars of today can be fought with missiles and cannons, as in the case of Ukraine, or with power cuts, cyber sabotage, disinformation, financing of extremist groups, and much more.

Self-defence raises a strategic question: either we ally ourselves with the aggressed, the weaker, or tomorrow it will be our turn. We may be on the verge of the decisive moment: to support with a new kind of intensity or just with minimal costs?

Looking further ahead, I would say that it has been decades since the international situation reached such a dangerous point as now. On top of a pandemic that has paralysed the world, we now have a combination of very serious conflicts and tensions. In Ukraine, Yemen, around Iran, in and around Burkina Faso, Libya, Myanmar, in addition to the never-ending crises in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Congo (DRC) and others.

In the most developed countries, people are coming out of the peak of the health crisis with a very acute consumerist fever. The issue of global warming, and the accelerated destruction of nature, has disappeared from the radar of citizens and the speeches of politicians. Even Greta Thunberg, who had mobilised global attention in the period before the pandemic, can not make herself heard.

Then came war, thanks to the imperialist and dictatorial madness of Vladimir Putin. I am sorry to say to the analysts who talk about these things that this is not a geostrategic issue. Putin wants to be the Tsar Peter the Great of our times, when he may end up being seen as the little Hitler of 2022.

Meanwhile, the tension between the US and China has entered a far more dangerous phase. And the impoverishment of the most vulnerable countries, something that has disappeared from the fat print of newspapers, is accelerating. In Sri Lanka, the Sahel countries, Central America, Haiti, and Pakistan, to name but a few. And the economies of the richest nations are increasingly living off the debt of future generations, amidst inflation that shows the mismatches between production, imports, and consumption patterns. Meanwhile, multilateral organisations continue to lose strength and image.

We are at a crossroads of critical uncertainties and serious risks. Where are we heading to? And where are the visionary leaders capable of proposing common-sense paths?

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 June 2022)

 

Emmanuel Macron and the new political game

Emmanuel Macron: his and our challenges

Victor Ângelo

 

This Sunday and next Sunday the legislative elections are taking place in France. Emmanuel Macron needs a presidential majority in the next National Assembly. In other words, a victory for Ensemble, the coalition of centrist parties that supports him. Bearing in mind the fractures in France, the country's weight in European politics and economics, and the complexity of the international situation, I hope he can achieve this. But above all, because the alternative would be a coalition dominated by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a narcissistic lunatic and demagogue who proposes an unrealistic programme. Nouvelle Union populaire écologique et sociale, Nupes, is the name of the amalgam that Mélenchon has managed to build, and which has more than three hundred candidates from his party in the elections. The other partners are there like sidekicks: a hundred ecologist candidates, sixty from the old Socialist Party, and fifty from the communists.

It is a coalition in which the extremists dictate the rules of the game and define the programme. The moderate left is limited to an opportunistic collage to try to avoid shipwreck and save a few seats in the National Assembly. Nupes is exactly the opposite of what has happened in Portugal in recent years. Here, the socialists handled the agenda, and the radicals were invited to clap, when necessary and without the exercise of executive power. If Mélenchon and his people got the parliamentary majority, France would enter a phase of populism that would lead to the explosion of public debt and end in bankruptcy. Note that at the moment, still far from the fanciful policies that Nupes proposes, the country already spends more than 60% of its GDP on public spending. With Mélenchon, the financial crisis would be followed by a political crisis, with serious repercussions in Europe, given the central role France plays in the EU.

I repeat: for the good of France and the peace of mind of those who believe in the European project, it is essential that the movement supporting Macron obtains an absolute majority. But as I have already said here, Macron has to be seen as a reformist close to popular concerns. That is a dimension that any leader has to project, in the complicated context in which we live.

On the external front, Macron's ambition is a mix that is not always easy to understand. It combines good intentions, a broad vision with nationalism and a lot of personal presumption.  On the one hand, he wants a more sovereign EU. On the other, he acts as if France and himself should take the lead in achieving that goal. It is obvious that he sees in António Costa an important ally. But it is also well known that he has recently created some resistance in Eastern Europe. The insistence on talks with Vladimir Putin and the ambiguity of his recent statements run counter to his dream of European leadership. Moreover, they must be seen in the context of a competition between Macron and Erdogan, for whom he harbours deep personal antipathy and total political mistrust.

The French election comes at a time when Europe needs to remain cohesive. And not just in relation to Vladimir Putin's Russia, although that is the most immediate challenge. Indeed, the EU has managed to preserve a good level of coherence in responding to Putin. I say this, but I also recognise that in the future it may be more complicated to maintain European unity. The sanctions packages approved so far are by and large the most appropriate. They combine immediate impacts with fundamental long-term consequences. They have some costs for us, but that is the price to pay for creating a new European order.

The big question, beyond sanctions, is to define what political role Europe can play in finding, as promptly as possible, a solution that guarantees the legitimate defence of Ukraine and recognises its sovereignty, its right to live in peace and to make its own political choices. This is where Macron and others must focus their foreign policy efforts. For now, nobody knows how this war will evolve and how it will be possible to find, urgently, before the situation slips even further, a just peace. And that is very worrying.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 June 2022)

 

 

Ukraine: what's next, after 100 days of agression?

Ukraine: looking beyond 100 days of aggression

Victor Angelo

President Zelensky has stressed that the war will only end with recourse to diplomacy. He is right. He needs to build a peace agreement with the aggressor. This will not be easy. The agreement cannot reward what has been a clear violation of international law, a succession of war crimes, destruction, and acts of pillage. This is the great dilemma, which makes any mediation process a puzzle. In this scenario, an agreement will only be possible between a position of strength and one of weakness. This is a dramatic conclusion. It leads to the search for the crushing or humiliation of the adversary. 

At the outset, one would say that prolonging hostilities is to the advantage of the stronger side. The courage and determination of the Ukrainians would not be enough to respond effectively to a prolonged offensive conducted with unbridled brutality.

It is in this context that external aid is essential. Neither the US nor the EU countries can let Vladimir Putin's Russia defeat Ukraine. If that were to happen, peace, security and democracy in Europe would be seriously undermined. Now it would be Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Poland, Lithuania, or any other country in our geopolitical space. Or we would simply continue to live side by side with a neighbour always ready to do us harm.

Thus, each bloc must assist Ukraine with the means available. On the American side, it has now been decided to provide an arsenal of advanced technology and long-range weapons. The admonitions coming from Moscow following this decision by Joe Biden found an answer in the text that the President signed this Tuesday in the New York Times: it is not about seeking a war between NATO and Russia. The aim is to enable the Ukrainians to have the means to exercise their right to self-defence.

On the European side, the package of sanctions adopted this week at the European Council should be seen in a positive light. It goes as far as the consensus allows. What is essential is that it is finalised without further delay - Hungary continues to put up obstacles - and applied at an accelerated pace.

Even more important is the agreement between the EU and the UK that makes it impossible for ships carrying Russian oil products to insure their cargoes in London and the rest of Europe. Without such insurance contracts, the big shipping lines are no longer able to operate in the service of Russian exports. Experience with Iran shows that such a measure sharply reduces oil exports. This is certainly one of the sanctions so far with the greatest impact.

As I have said several times, sanctions have fundamentally three objectives. To express political condemnation. To reduce the financial capacity that sustains the war machine. And to disconnect the Russian Federation from more developed economies, to emphasise that there is a connection between respect for international law and participation in global markets.

Sanctions should be part of a future negotiation of normalising relations. But they can only be lifted when the Kremlin is no longer seen by Europe and its allies as an unpredictable and threatening regime.

In addition to arms and sanctions, it will be necessary to continue financial support to Ukraine. This support is a potentially delicate matter at a time of relatively anaemic economic growth in Europe and when the rising cost of living is becoming a major concern. But it is the price we have to pay to maintain our stability and security. It is an effort that will last for some time. Later, when entering the negotiation phase, the mediators will have to include on the agenda the issue of war reparations and the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction.  

On this 100th day of the aggression, we are facing a very complex situation. Future scenarios, especially for the next three weeks, should include several concerns. But for now, the priority challenges are four: immediately strengthening Ukraine's defence capacity; deepening isolation and weakening Russia's public finances; maintaining unity amongst us; and continuing to insist on the diplomacy of peace.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated  3 June 2022)