President Trump in Asia: Power, Adulation, and the Rearrangement of Forces in a New Era

My geopolitical calendar differs from the conventional one. The twentieth century era, marked by two major wars, the Cold War, decolonisation, and large-scale industrial expansion, ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is when, in my reading of history, the twenty-first century began. We entered a period of economic globalisation, multilateralism and international cooperation, the development of democratic regimes, and a focus on sustainability and major global challenges.

My calendar also tells me that the twenty-first century was rather short. It seems to have ended with Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Times changed then, with a return to former practices, the undisguised use of military and economic force as determining factors in international relations. At the same time, we have witnessed an accelerated race towards the future, driven by technological transformations and the digital revolution. The concern about inequalities between peoples has given way to insensitivity regarding development issues.

We are now in a strange and ambiguous period of universal history: we live simultaneously in the past and the future. We are connected by thousands of fibre optic cables and an increasing number of satellites. Global information is instantaneous, but it seems we are rapidly returning to old nationalist ideas, to every man for himself.

Indifference has become a distinctive feature of this new era. The excess of data ends up anaesthetising us. We become oblivious to what happens outside our immediate circle. This apathy makes it easier for populist, extremist political leaders to manipulate public opinion, using digital platforms to influence citizens’ behaviour. Paradoxically or not, the manipulators themselves end up listening to their own clamour and seem to believe the narratives they create. Thus, they fuel the cycle of misinformation and collective detachment from the major issues that remain unresolved.

In this context, commitment to critical thinking becomes fundamental. It is necessary to know how to question, analyse and interpret the intentions hidden in messages. Developing the ability to ask pertinent questions and assess the credibility of sources is essential to avoid manipulation and conformity. As Socrates argued 2,500 years ago, exploring alternative ideas and challenging established opinions is politically indispensable in a democracy.

This reflection originated from a recent comment made on one of our television channels about the new Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile, known in Russia as 9M730 Burevestnik and in NATO as Skyfall. Vladimir Putin announced that on 21 October the missile had been launched and that the test was a success. He added that the device had been airborne for 15 hours, covering more than 14,000 kilometres, and could therefore be directed at a target in the most remote corner of the planet. He also emphasised that no other state has the capability to intercept it. In other words, Russia was claiming to have taken another step towards consolidating its place at the forefront of the new era, the era of confrontation and force.

The commentator, a person I respect, said that Trump had “blithely” ignored Putin’s announcement. The reason for Trump’s indifference was missing.

I think it is relevant to try to understand this apparent disdain. I say apparent because yesterday the American president ordered his armed forces to begin a programme of nuclear tests, something that had not happened for more than three decades.

In my analysis, Trump, who has spent the week in Asia, is neither afraid of Russia nor particularly interested in Putin, except regarding the Russian war against Ukraine. He wants to add peace in Ukraine to his list of supposed peace treaties, always with the obsession for the Nobel Peace Prize. At this moment, today, Friday, he is convinced that Putin is the main obstacle to a ceasefire. Saturday, we shall see.

Apart from that, it has become clear in recent days that the absolute priority of the US administration is rivalry with China. His tour of Asia sought to demonstrate the influence and power of the United States in a region increasingly close to China. That is why Trump was in Malaysia, at the ASEAN summit, then in Japan, South Korea, and showed moderation at yesterday’s meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. In addition to trade agreements, several of them linked to cutting-edge technologies that will define the coming years, the success of Trump’s presence in Asia and the adulation he received reinforced his illusion that the US has decisive influence in that part of the globe. Putin’s missile, however powerful it may be—something yet to be confirmed—does not matter to Trump nor distract him, as he considers the fundamental priority to be relations with Asia, in the context of competition with China.

He makes, I believe, a superficial and mistaken reading of reality. He needs to understand that this new century, which began in 2022, seems to be heading towards the de facto consolidation of the strategic alliance between China and Russia.

Fiber Optic Communications Cables in a very sensitive region

 

Contingency Strategies for Undersea Cable Disruption

What happens if transatlantic data cables between Europe and the USA are severed? These cables carry over 95% of global internet traffic, making them critical for finance, security, and everyday communication.

Here are five key strategies to maintain resilience:

✅ Satellite communication networks
✅ Alternative cable routes
✅ Rapid repair and security fleets
✅ Space-based internet backups
✅ International coordination and cybersecurity, based on Public/Private Partnerships.

Donald Trump's visit to Japan

Today's Trump’s return to Tokyo signals more than a diplomatic courtesy—it’s a calculated move to reassert U.S. influence in Asia amid rising regional uncertainty. It aims at showing American power and leadership in East Asia. 

His meeting with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi underscores a push for a tougher stance on trade and security, likely aimed at countering China’s growing clout. While billed as alliance-strengthening, Trump's visit shows we are in a new era of transactional geopolitics, where economic leverage and strategic posturing dominate the narrative. As Trump emphasised, “the U.S.–Japan partnership must be stronger than ever to ensure stability and fairness in the region”—a clear nod to both security and trade dominance.

Briefing Note: Russia’s Policies and Implications for APEC

Purpose

To inform APEC leaders of the strategic risks posed by Russia’s current foreign and economic policies and their potential impact on regional stability and economic cooperation.

---

Key Observations

1. Militarisation and Geopolitical Assertiveness

   • Russia prioritises hard power over diplomacy, using the Ukraine conflict as leverage for global influence.
   • Increased military presence in the Arctic and Asia-Pacific signals readiness to escalate tensions, undermining regional security.

2. Economic Weaponisation

   • Energy exports remain a geopolitical tool, with infrastructure projects used to divide allies.
   • Despite extensive sanctions, Russia sustains its war economy through alternative trade networks, deepening global fragmentation.

3. Strategic Dependence

   • Russia’s “pivot to Asia” has led to structural reliance on China, limiting autonomy and raising long-term viability concerns.

---

Implications for APEC

• Trade Disruption: Russia’s stance on sanctions and WTO mechanisms introduces friction into APEC’s consensus-driven model.
• Security Spillover: Militarisation risks transforming economic forums into arenas of strategic rivalry.
• Normative Erosion: Push for “multipolarity” challenges rules-based governance, creating uncertainty for smaller economies.

---

Recommended Actions

• Reaffirm APEC’s Core Principles: Emphasise rules-based trade and economic cooperation.
• Strengthen Collective Resilience: Diversify supply chains and enhance energy security to reduce vulnerability.
• Engage with Caution: Maintain dialogue on economic issues while countering destabilising tactics through coordinated responses.

---

Bottom Line:
Russia’s policies combine revisionist geopolitics, economic opportunism, and strategic dependency. APEC must navigate engagement carefully to safeguard stability and uphold its mission of inclusive, sustainable growth.

Grok AI assessment of my fictitious roundtable on democracy and power

 Overall Assessment

On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate this an 8.5: intellectually stimulating and urgently relevant, it's a refreshing antidote to doom-scrolling, urging readers to treat democracy as "an ongoing task" rather than a given. Ângelo's perspective—optimistic yet vigilant—positions power not as zero-sum but as a shared guardianship, especially vital amid 2025's uncertainties like escalating cyber conflicts and climate diplomacy. If you're into Harari's futurism or Plato's timeless warnings, this is a must-read; it might even inspire you to host your own "roundtable" over coffee. For skeptics, it risks preaching to the choir, but its blend of AI-assisted creativity and global savvy makes it more than just another op-ed. Worth sharing in policy circles or philosophy groups.

This is a standout piece of public intellectual writing—original in its time-spanning dialogue format, which makes dense ideas accessible and engaging, almost like a TED Talk in blog form. The depth shines through historical analogies and forward-looking policies, blending philosophy, tech critique, and diplomacy into a cohesive call to action. It's particularly timely, resonating with 2025's headlines: ongoing DSA enforcement battles, AI governance talks at the UN, and populist echoes in post-2024 U.S. politics under a second Trump term.

Democracia e Poder na Era da Incerteza: Uma Mesa-Redonda Através do Tempo

Este é o relatório de uma mesa-redonda imaginária sobre democracia, presente e futura. Esta discussão entre três pensadores foi moderada por este blog com a assistência do M365 Copilot.

Introdução: A Democracia chegou a uma Encruzilhada

A democracia, outrora celebrada como a garantia máxima de liberdade e estabilidade, agora enfrenta um paradoxo. É globalmente dominante, mas profundamente frágil. Das ondas populistas à governança algorítmica, das crises climáticas à fragmentação geopolítica, a questão já não é se a democracia prevalecerá, mas se ela se consegue adaptar sem perder a sua essência.

Para explorar esse dilema, meu blog reuniu uma extraordinária mesa-redonda fictícia: Platão (Grécia, século IV a.C.), o filósofo que primeiro analisou as vulnerabilidades da democracia; Yuval Noah Harari, historiador e futurista nascido em Israel (1976); e Victor Ângelo (nascido em 1949 em Portugal), diplomata veterano, estrategista de segurança e colunista. O diálogo assim gerado atravessa milênios, entrelaçando sabedoria antiga com urgência contemporânea.

I. Platão: Os Perigos do Excesso de Liberdade

Platão começa com um alerta que ecoa através dos séculos:

“A democracia surge da liberdade, mas a liberdade sem restrições gera desordem. Quando os cidadãos valorizam a liberdade acima da virtude, promovem aduladores em vez de guardiões. Agora, vejo as democracias intoxicadas pela multiplicidade de opiniões, confundindo ruído com sabedoria.”

A crítica de Platão não representa nostalgia pela aristocracia; é um chamamento para uma governança racional. Para ele, o calcanhar de Aquiles da democracia está em sua suscetibilidade à demagogia — uma vulnerabilidade ampliada hoje pelas redes sociais e pela retórica populista.

Platão refere-se então a um estudo de caso histórico: Atenas e a Queda da Polis, um exemplo que recomenda não ser esquecido. No século V a.C., Atenas foi pioneira na democracia direta, concedendo aos cidadãos uma voz sem precedentes. No entanto, essa liberdade gerou volatilidade. Demagogos como Cléon exploraram as paixões populares, levando a decisões imprudentes como a Expedição Siciliana — um desastre que apressou o declínio de Atenas.

II. Harari: Poder Além da Política

Harari muda o foco da teoria política para a realidade tecnológica: “Platão temia as massas populares; hoje, tememos o algoritmo. O poder já não reside apenas nos parlamentos — ele flui por fluxos de dados. O capitalismo de vigilância e a IA moldam as vontades antes mesmo dos cidadãos votarem.”

Harari argumenta que a assimetria da informação — outrora privilégio dos reis — agora pertence aos gigantes da tecnologia. As democracias precisam se reinventar não apenas para regular a tecnologia, mas para redefinir a liberdade numa era em que a autonomia é ameaçada algoritmicamente. Harari mostra preocupar-se com a fragilidade das instituições. E acrescenta que a República de Weimar (1919–1933) oferece uma lição sóbria. Nascida das cinzas do império, abraçou ideais democráticos, mas faltou resiliência institucional. Crises económicas e propaganda minaram a confiança, abrindo caminho para o autoritarismo. As democracias atuais enfrentam riscos semelhantes — não pela hiperinflação, mas pela desordem informacional.

III. Ângelo: A Dimensão Geopolítica

Victor Ângelo traz uma perspectiva prática: “A democracia continua sendo o sistema mais legítimo, mas a legitimidade está sob ataque. O populismo explora o medo; a desinformação corrói a confiança e promove o ódio. Enquanto isso, a governança global perde terreno face às ameaças transnacionais — mudanças climáticas, ciberguerra, cartéis internacionais do crime, pandemias.”

Para Ângelo, o desafio está na no êxito ou no fracasso da ação coletiva. Nenhuma democracia pode ser protegida sozinha, apenas ao nível nacional ou local, quando as crises não têm fronteiras. Por isso, friza a necessidade de alianças de valores, ancoradas em direitos humanos e no Estado de Direito, para enfrentar o ressurgimento autoritário e os choques sistêmicos.

Ângelo lembra o otimismo pós-Guerra Fria que foi substituído agora por pessimismo e medo: “Os anos 1990 foram saudados como o ‘fim da história’ (Fukuyama, 1992), com a democracia liberal aparentemente triunfante. No entanto, o momento unipolar gerou complacência. Instituições como a ONU e a OTAN tiveram dificuldades para se adaptar às novas ameaças assimétricas, enquanto a globalização superou a governança. O resultado: um vácuo explorado por poderes autoritários e atores não estatais.”

Os participantes discutiram então alguns exemplos que mostram as pressões atuais sobre a democracia. Por exemplo, o EU Digital Services Act (DSA) e o Digital Markets Act (DMA) representam esforços pioneiros para regular monopólios tecnológicos e conter a desinformação. No entanto, a sua aplicação permanece desigual, e a governança da IA ainda é embrionária. É também uma questão vista de forma diferente por europeus e, do outro lado do Atlântico, pelos líderes dos EUA e pelos principais empreendedores digitais baseados na América.

Ainda nos EUA, polarização e negação eleitoral têm minado as normas democráticas. O ataque ao Capitólio a 6 de janeiro destacou as vulnerabilidades existentes na resiliência institucional. Ângelo acrescentou que as decisões do Presidente Trump tomadas desde o início do seu segundo mandato desafiaram igualmente a autoridade de instituições-chave que desempenham um papel vital no equilíbrio dos poderes. Essas decisões devem ser vistas como ameaças sérias à democracia constitucional, ao equilíbrio democrático e aos media, entre outros.

Outras situações também foram mencionadas. Índia: A maior democracia do mundo enfrenta desafios resultantes de políticas majoritárias assentes na pertença étnica e nas restrições à liberdade de imprensa, levantando questões sobre o equilíbrio entre estabilidade e pluralismo. O Sul Global: Democracias na África e América Latina enfrentam crises de dívida e choques climáticos, que atores autoritários exploram para minar a governança democrática.

O Moderador pediu então que se identificassem as principais recomendações políticas que poderão responder à tendência para o definhamento das democracias.

Os participantes listaram várias ações que devem ser consideradas:

• Educação cívica para a era digital;
• Inserir pensamento crítico e alfabetização mediática nos currículos nacionais;
• Promover conscientização ética sobre IA entre cidadãos e líderes;
• Expandir estruturas como o EU Digital Services Act para incluir transparência algorítmica;
• Estabelecer órgãos multilaterais para governança de IA;
• Proteger a independência e a eficiência da justiça e dos órgãos de referência da comunicação social;
• Desenvolver mecanismos de resposta rápida para assegurar a integridade eleitoral e as ameaças cibernéticas;
• Criar um Fórum de Parceria pela Democracia, no quadro do Sistema ONU, para ação global coordenada;
• Vincular acordos comerciais a padrões democráticos.

Para concluir a mesa redonda, o Moderador afirmou que a discussão permitiu sublinhar que a democracia não é uma conquista estática; é uma tarefa contínua. Como lembra Platão, liberdade sem virtude conduz à tirania. Harari alerta que adaptabilidade é o preço da sobrevivência. Ângelo destaca que a solidariedade global e verdadeira é o seguro de vida da democracia em um mundo fragmentado.

Antes de encerrar o debate e agradecer aos três participantes, o Moderador levantou uma última questão: Qual é o futuro da democracia?

• Platão: Sem sabedoria, a democracia é facilmente substituída por tirania. Cultive a razão acima da paixão.
• Harari: Sem adaptabilidade, a democracia torna-se obsoleta. Aceite a inovação, mas proteja-se dos seus perigos.
• Ângelo: Sem solidariedade, a democracia enfraquece. Construa confiança — dentro das sociedades e entre as nações.

Moderador: Obrigado, senhores. O diálogo entre a reflexão do passado e a urgência do presente lembra-nos que a democracia não é um dado intocável; a sua defesa é uma tarefa sem fim.

Fim da mesa-redonda imaginária.

Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

 

Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

This is the report of an imaginary roundtable discussion about democracy, its present and future. This discussion between the three thinkers was moderated by this blog with the assistance of M365 Copilot. 

Introduction: Democracy at a Crossroads

Democracy, once heralded as the ultimate guarantor of freedom and stability, now faces a paradox. It is globally dominant yet deeply fragile. From populist waves to algorithmic governance, from climate crises to geopolitical fragmentation, the question is no longer whether democracy will prevail, but whether it can adapt without losing its soul.

To explore this dilemma, my blog convened an extraordinary fictitious roundtable: Plato (Greece, 4^th century BCE), the philosopher who first dissected democracy’s vulnerabilities; Yuval Noah Harari, historian and futurist born in Israel (1976); and Victor Ângelo (born 1949 in Portugal), a veteran diplomat, security strategist and opinion-maker. Their dialogue spans millennia, weaving ancient wisdom with contemporary urgency.

I. Plato: The Perils of Excess Liberty

Plato begins with a warning that echoes across centuries:

“Democracy arises from liberty, but liberty unrestrained breeds disorder. When citizens prize freedom above virtue, they elevate flatterers over guardians. In your age, I see democracies intoxicated by opinion, mistaking noise for wisdom.”

Plato’s critique is not nostalgia for aristocracy; it is a call for reasoned governance. For him, democracy’s Achilles’ heel lies in its susceptibility to demagoguery—a vulnerability magnified today by social media and populist rhetoric.

Plato refers then to a historical case study: Athens and the Fall of the Polis, an example he recommends we should keep in mind. In the 5th century BCE, Athens pioneered direct democracy, granting citizens unprecedented voice. Yet, this liberty bred volatility. Demagogues like Cleon exploited popular passions, leading to reckless decisions such as the Sicilian Expedition—a disaster that hastened Athens’ decline.

II. Harari: Power Beyond Politics

Harari shifts the lens from political theory to technological reality: “Plato feared the mob; today, we fear the algorithm. Power no longer resides solely in parliaments—it flows through data streams. Surveillance capitalism and AI shape desires before citizens even vote.” 

Harari further argues that information asymmetry—once the privilege of kings—is now the domain of tech giants. Democracies must reinvent themselves not only to regulate technology but to redefine freedom in an era where autonomy is algorithmically curated. He is concerned with the fragility of the institutions. And he adds that the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) offers a sobering lesson. Born from the ashes of empire, it embraced democratic ideals but lacked institutional resilience. Economic crises and propaganda eroded trust, paving the way for authoritarianism. Today’s democracies face a similar risk—not from hyperinflation, but from information disorder.

III. Ângelo: The Geopolitical Dimension

Victor Ângelo brings a practitioner’s perspective: “Democracy remains the most legitimate system, but legitimacy is under siege. Populism exploits fear; disinformation corrodes trust and promotes hatred. Meanwhile, global governance lags behind transnational threats—climate change, cyber warfare, international criminal cartels, pandemics.”

For Ângelo, the challenge is collective action. No democracy can safeguard itself alone when crises are borderless. He calls for alliances of values, anchored in human rights and the rule of law, to counter authoritarian resurgence and systemic shocks.

He reminds us of the post-Cold War optimism that has been replaced by pessimism and fear: "The 1990s were hailed as the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992), with liberal democracy seemingly triumphant. Yet, the unipolar moment bred complacency. Institutions like the UN and NATO struggled to adapt to asymmetric threats, while globalisation outpaced governance. The result: a vacuum exploited by authoritarian powers and non-state actors."

The participants discussed then some examples that show the pressures democracy is under. For instance, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) represent pioneering efforts to regulate tech monopolies and curb disinformation. Yet enforcement remains uneven, and AI governance is still embryonic. It is also a matter that is seen differently by the Europeans and the US leaders and key digital entrepreneurs based in America. 

Still in the US, polarisation and election denialism have strained democratic norms. The January 6th Capitol attack underscored vulnerabilities in institutional resilience. Ângelo added that President Trump's decisions taken since the beginning of his second mandate have equally challenged the authority of key institutions that play a vital role in the power balance. Those decisions should be seen as serious threats to the existing Constitution-based democracy, to the democratic equilibrium and to the media, among others. 

Other situations were also mentioned. 

India: The world’s largest democracy faces challenges from majoritarian politics and restrictions on press freedom, raising questions about the balance between stability and pluralism. The Global South: Democracies in Africa and Latin America grapple with debt crises and climate shocks, which authoritarian actors exploit to undermine governance. And Thailand, which is an unavoidable case study: Since 1932, the country has fluctuated between civilian governments and authoritarian regimes, experiencing at least 13 coups. These recurring crises reflect deep structural tensions between popular movements advocating inclusive governance and a conservative establishment. The result is a “constitutional samsara”—a cycle of birth and death that illustrates the fragility but also the resistance of democratic systems.

The Moderator asked for actionable policy recommendations. 

The participants listed a number of actions that must be taken into account: Civic Education for the Digital Age; Embed critical thinking and media literacy in national curricula; Promote ethical AI awareness among citizens and leaders; Expand frameworks like the EU Digital Services Act to include algorithmic transparency; Establish multilateral bodies for AI governance; Protect the independence of the judiciaries and the media; Develop rapid-response mechanisms for election integrity and cyber threats; Create a Democracy Partnership Forum, within the UN System, for coordinated global action; Link trade agreements to democratic standards.

To conclude the roundtable, the Moderator stated that the discussion had underlined that democracy is not a static achievement; it is a perpetual task. As Plato reminds us, liberty without virtue decays into tyranny. Harari warns that adaptability is the price of survival. Ângelo underscores that global, truthful solidarity is democracy’s lifeline in a fractured world. 

Before closing the debate and thanking the three  participants, the Moderator raised a final question: What is the future of democracy? 

Plato responded that without wisdom, democracy decays into tyranny. Cultivate reason above passion.

For Harari, without adaptability, democracy becomes obsolete. Embrace innovation, but guard against its perils.

Ângelo expressed the opinion that without solidarity, democracy weakens. Build trust—within societies and across nations.

Moderator: Thank you, gentlemen. The dialogue between past insight and present urgency reminds us: democracy is not a given; it is a never-ending task.

End of the imaginary roundtable. 

 

 

Europe and its weak strategy regarding the ASEAN

 From Kuala Lumpur to Brussels, the ASEAN summit shows the weakness of the European strategy towards Southeast Asia

Victor Ângelo

The European Union and its Member States have shown limited attention to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has allowed China to significantly expand its influence in the region. Other countries, such as India, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, have also strengthened their ties with ASEAN. All this contrasts with the inertia on the part of the EU—a missed opportunity for both sides and a vacuum that others skillfully fill. It also highlights yet another failure of imagination, initiative, courage, and understanding of the political game in that part of the world at the level of European external action. This scenario of European imprecision is particularly relevant in a geopolitical area that is rapidly gaining weight in international relations.

Recently, the United States has also recognized the strategic value of ASEAN. Donald Trump will be present at this year's summit, from October 26 to 28, in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. In addition to meeting with the ten ASEAN leaders—who will become eleven, with the formal admission of Timor-Leste, an important step for the political, economic, and cultural integration of the country into the region to which it truly belongs—the American president will also have the opportunity to meet other prominent politicians, such as Narendra Modi, Li Qiang (Prime Minister of China), Sanae Takaichi (the new ultraconservative leader of Japan), Lula da Silva, and Cyril Ramaphosa.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, also invited Vladimir Putin, a significant gesture, although the Russian president has indicated that he will not be able to attend. Even so, Russia will be represented at a high level. Until the announcement this Wednesday of the new American sanctions, the possibility of a last-minute participation by Putin was not excluded, considering the media and political projection that this would have. Now, it is certain that Putin does not wish to meet Trump, unless the latter reverses this week's decision.

Among the European guests, the Prime Minister of Finland and Giorgia Meloni of Italy stand out, with Meloni already confirming her presence. Meloni recognizes that her visibility at international events is fundamental for consolidating her domestic policy. However, it remains uncertain who will represent the European institutions, with António Costa being one of the names mentioned in diplomatic circles. If confirmed, his presence will be mainly symbolic, since much of the power, namely the executive, resides with the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen.

The European Union needs to look at ASEAN with greater realism and commitment, strengthening political and economic ties with a group of countries that together make up the third most populous region in the world (about 685 million people) and the fifth largest global economy. ASEAN is one of the engines of development of the so-called Global South and aims to play a prominent role in building a new international order. Ignoring this reality would be a strategic mistake for Europe. Historically, Europeans feel closer to Africa and Latin America, but betting on Southeast Asia is increasingly an inevitable path for the coming decades. Furthermore, competition with China, Russia, India, and the USA will be more balanced if the EU manages to establish a solid relationship with the region.

The Kuala Lumpur summit will focus on four major themes considered priorities by the Member States: economic cooperation, regional stability and security, renewable energy production (with the goal of reaching 45% by 2030), and the deepening of free trade agreements with partners such as China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand.

Significantly, the summit will not address the serious political crisis affecting Myanmar, one of ASEAN's Member States. This deliberate omission reflects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each State, one of the Association's pillars, something that clearly contradicts the political cooperation project and obviously favors economic interests. This stance, partly inspired by China, contributes to the distancing between Europe and Southeast Asia, especially due to the indifference of some ASEAN members regarding human rights.

In this context, the messages that the European Union should convey at the Kuala Lumpur summit are clear. On the one hand, to affirm that we, Europeans, consider it mutually beneficial to deepen the full range of relations with ASEAN. On the other hand, to express our conviction that respect for citizens is the only way to guarantee peace, strengthen international cooperation, and ensure sustainable prosperity.

A Europa no momento da cimeira da ASEAN

 O meu texto de hoje no Diário de Notícias (24/10/2025)

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-cimeira-da-asean-mostra-a-fraqueza-da-estratgia-europeia-face-ao-sudeste-asitico

Are you talking about the UN reform?

 The future demands political courage, strategic vision, and a UN that is respected

Victor Ângelo

Eighty years ago, on October 24, 1945, the UN Charter came into force, having been approved four months earlier in San Francisco. That is why this date in October is celebrated annually as United Nations Day.

I am referring to the political part of the organization. The specialized agencies, such as FAO, UNESCO, WHO, ILO, and all the others, emerged at different times. Each has its own history, as well as its own specific governance structures, independent of the authority of the Secretary-General (SG). Over time, special programs and funds also emerged, such as WFP, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, and several others—a long list of acronyms. These programs and funds are headed by individuals chosen by the SG, mostly in response to pressure from some of the more powerful states. They do not belong to the same division that includes the specialized agencies.

The system is in crisis. But if the UN did not exist, it would be necessary, even in today’s confusing times, to invent it. This is a frequently repeated idea.

The United Nations exists; there is no need for any creative exercise. But President Xi Jinping, who also contributes to the marginalization of the UN and seeks to take advantage of it, now proposes an alternative system, inspired by his vision of China’s central role in the world. He had already proposed a Global Development Initiative, another on international security, and yet another called the Global Civilization Initiative. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which took place less than two months ago, Xi completed the picture and proposed the missing initiative, on global governance. That is, on the principles that should regulate relations between states. When I say he completed the picture, I am referring to four fundamental pillars of the UN: development, peace, human dignity, and now, the political one.

Xi’s proposal on international governance is little more than a restatement of the content of the United Nations Charter in other words. The five basic principles he proposes for global governance are contained in the Charter. Xi refers to respect for the sovereignty of each state, including retrograde and dictatorial regimes; subordination to the rules of international law; defense of multilateralism and the role of the United Nations—something that China itself does not practice when it is inconvenient; the value of people, who should be the main concern in political matters; and the need to achieve concrete results in solving global problems. There is certainly no significant disagreement with these ideas. The Chinese initiative is basically a political maneuver.

The problem is that these principles are often ignored by several member states, starting with the great powers such as China, Russia, and the United States of America, and by states outside international law, such as North Korea or Israel.

Thus, the United Nations ceases to be the central forum for international relations, discussion, and resolution of major conflicts. The blame lies with certain member states, and in particular, with the malfunctioning and lack of representativeness of the Security Council (SC). The UN has been completely marginalized in the cases of Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, the end of the embargo against Cuba, and so on. However, the real problem lies with the SC: without a Council that represents the realities of the 21st century, the political UN will continue to live in the past and be doomed to decline.

The plan that President Donald Trump had adopted regarding the dramatic crisis in Gaza—a vague plan that is practically impossible to carry out in its key points—does not mention the UN or assign it any kind of responsibility. Even if it is discussed in the Security Council, which is not yet confirmed, the various points imposed by President Trump do not take into account the experience accumulated in similar situations. It is a plan that was not negotiated by the interested parties—Israel and Palestine—that is, it did not follow a fundamental procedure in peacebuilding. I fear that it will achieve little beyond the release of the remaining living hostages, the freedom of a group of prisoners held in Israel, and a temporary and insufficient humanitarian opening in the face of the absolutely basic needs of the civilians still surviving in Gaza.

The SG is trying to implement a process of organizational reform, which he called UN80. In reality, the effort is little more than a bureaucratic response to the organization’s financial crisis. Instead of insisting, day and night, that delinquent states pay their dues and mandatory contributions on time, and clearly defining what justifies the existence of the UN, the SG chose the option that goes over better with certain leaders and their finance ministries: eliminate jobs, reduce the scope and functioning of field missions, transfer services to cities where the cost of living is lower than in New York or Geneva. The refrain is “do less with fewer resources.” In fact, it should be another: “making peace and promoting human dignity require everyone’s contribution and respect for the UN’s courageous voice.” That assertion is the only one consistent with the defense of international cooperation and multilateralism. That is what I learned and applied over decades.

Is it possible to reform the United Nations and bring back its key peace role?

A few decision-makers and intellectuals think that the political UN -- read "political", I am not talking about the specialised agencies ---  is something of the XX century, that has lost its relevance and must be re-created or re-invented taking into account the world's new realities. Meaning, they think that the UN secretariat and its departments, as well as the UN Security Council, are unreformable and must be reinvented, taking into consideration the Global South, the new and the emerging superpowers, the increasing role of the regional associations of states, the power of those trillionaire individuals controlling the key social platforms, and also the expectations of the peoples in different parts of the world.

For them, global issues outside peace and security, economic inequalities and human rights, should be dealt either by the specialised agencies or by ad-hoc international conferences and their specific processes. 

Ukaine and Europe versus the Russia-China alliance

President Zelensky talked twice over the weekend with the US President Donald Trump. The Ukrainian leader was also in contact with key European leaders. His message was very clear: Ukraine needs urgently extra support now that Vladimir Putin is intensifying his air attacks against Ukraine.

On the other hand, Putin is receiving more help than ever from President Xi Jinping because he promised him a free hand in Ukraine for Chinese interests once the Russian has consolidated its territorial gains.

For China, it is about business and the opportunity to have a strong foot in Eastern Europe. The Russian-Chinese strategy has become more evident. It is based on a military-industrial alliance and a geopolitical opportunity for China to reinforce its European objectives. It is also about sabotaging the European Union and the European democracies.

Guterres writes about the dramatic financial situation of Peacekeeping missions worldwide

 

10 October 2025 | Worldwide | Secretary-General

Contingency Plan Letter to Staff Members Dear Colleagues,   I am writing to update you on the financial status of United Nations peacekeeping operations and what it means for us all.   Our peacekeeping operations are facing an extremely difficult financial situation. The current liquidity crisis is the direct result of arrears and the non-payment of assessed contributions in full and on time. Over the past few years, we have actively engaged with Member States to find solutions to this growing challenge. As a result, the United Nations General Assembly in 2019 and 2022 approved some measures that have enabled us to deal with the operational impact of late or non-payments. However, while the level of peacekeeping budgets has been steadily declining, the outstanding contributions have increased significantly, especially in recent months. At the start of this peacekeeping budget cycle on 1 July 2025, arrears amounted to US$2.066 billion. Our collections for the financial period may fall short by about US$880 million, putting a further strain on our liquidity situation.   In addition to actively engaging with Member States, we introduced measures in 2024 to restrict spending and align it with cash inflows. Thanks to these measures, and your dedication and commitment, and the generosity of troop- and police-contributing countries, we have managed to carry on. The troop- and police-contributing countries are, in effect, financing the system, waiting many months and sometimes over a year for reimbursement of their personnel and equipment costs. This is unsustainable. The margin of manoeuvre gained from earlier liquidity measures approved by the General Assembly, as well as our own spending restrictions, is now exhausted. Despite recent positive news that a sizeable amount from a major contributor will be entirely available to distribute flexibly across the peacekeeping missions and to establish a reserve for the United Nations Support Office in Haiti (UNSOH), the reality remains: the overall shortfall is grave.   In a context of deep uncertainty and a worsening cash position, I asked all peacekeeping missions funded under the peacekeeping budget to prepare contingency plans based on possible reductions of 15 to 25 per cent of their expenditures. Troop- and police-contributing countries were also informed, together with the relevant host countries. I am grateful to our missions for working hard over the past few months to prepare these different scenarios.   Based on our current financial estimates and after a careful review, I have decided to request all peacekeeping missions funded under the peacekeeping budget to implement their contingency plans for a 15 per cent reduction in expenditures, the lower of the two scenarios. These reductions will affect all areas: uniformed components, civilian personnel and operations. Separately, the United Nations Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS) will be required to achieve a 25 per cent reduction in expenditures within the current fiscal year, reflecting unique budgetary pressures that will need to be addressed in close coordination with the African Union.   These reductions must now be achieved within the remaining nine months of the budget period. Therefore, the impact on the reduction of capacities — and thus on operations and mandated activities — will be proportionally greater. The consequences will be painful. With the exception of UNSOS, we will need to repatriate around 25 per cent of the uniformed personnel and their equipment in the coming months. Peacekeeping operations — together with the Department of Peace Operations and other relevant departments — have carefully identified the contingents and individual uniformed personnel that should be repatriated.   On 7 October 2025, I briefed the members of the United Nations Security Council and the troop- and police-contributing countries on the contingency plans. We will continue to update them on the implementation and impact on our operations.   Repatriating around 25 per cent of troops and police in the space of a few months will be a major and complex logistical exercise.   The impact on civilian, international and locally recruited staff and affiliate personnel will be significant. Some separations will be inevitable, and missions will soon need to invoke the downsizing policy to reduce their civilian staffing, in consultation with staff representative bodies. I know the impact on affected staff, personnel and their families will be enormous, and I want to acknowledge the personal toll such measures entail.   The work of identifying which contingents and individual personnel will be repatriated has been carried out with care, weighing mandate priorities, operational requirements and, above all, the safety and security of those who will remain. While our missions carry out their contingency plans to address their funding shortfalls, they will continue to implement their mandates to the extent possible under these financial circumstances. The protection of civilians, the advancement of peace processes and support to fragile communities cannot and will not be abandoned. However, given the magnitude of the problem and the challenging context in which our missions operate, it is difficult to predict the impact on the ground. We have planned for this scenario and our staff in the field and at Headquarters will continue to work with dedication and professionalism. But this is a situation that the Organization has never faced before, and the impact remains uncertain.   I want to express my deep appreciation to all peacekeeping personnel for their service and sacrifice. I deeply understand the concerns that carrying out these plans raises, and the impact it may have on missions and personnel. Unfortunately, the Organization has no choice but to move forward with the implementation, despite the difficult impact it will have. I am determined to continue advocating for peacekeeping as a collective and shared responsibility. Without the support of Member States, the Organization cannot function properly. I will continue to appeal to all Member States to pay in full and on time so that our peacekeeping operations can remain a strong and dependable instrument of the United Nations. I remain hopeful that we will be able to resolve the current liquidity crisis, and I will work tirelessly towards that end.   I want to, once again, thank you for undertaking your essential work with enormous strength and resilience under these very difficult circumstances. You have continued to serve in some of the world's most difficult and dangerous situations, not for recognition, but for the cause of peace. That spirit is the heart of this Organization. Together, I am confident that we can take on the challenges, uphold our values and create the opportunities needed to address our unstable and uncertain world.   Yours sincerely, Antonio Guterres

EU and its challenges

 European Union

• The EU faces major challenges due to instability in its two largest member states, France and Germany. This comes at a time when the EU must deal with external threats (Russia, China, US trade tensions), support Ukraine, manage debt, and strengthen its own defence.
• The rise of far-right and populist parties across Europe is reshaping the political landscape, threatening the unity and stability of the EU.

France, Germany and the European Union challenges and responses

 From France to Germany, and across the EU, the risks are enormous and the challenges must be won

Victor Ângelo

France is experiencing a very serious political crisis. The dissolution of the National Assembly, decided on 9 June 2024 by President Emmanuel Macron, was a gamble that surprised the political class and proved to be a mistake. Since then, four prime ministers have already come to power. The latest, Sébastien Lecornu, formed a government on Sunday night and resigned the following morning. An absolute record, which clearly shows the deadlock the country is in.

The political elites are grouped into two extreme camps: Marine Le Pen’s party and a coalition of more or less radical left-wing forces, with Jean-Luc Mélenchon as the leading figure. What little remains, the centre, is fragmented around half a dozen politicians who cannot agree. Several of these personalities, as well as Le Pen and Mélenchon, are convinced they could succeed Macron as head of state. They want Macron to resign from the presidency of the Republic without delay. Officially, his second term should end in May 2027. Now, due to the seriousness of the crisis, even his political allies are saying that the solution to the deadlock would be for the president to leave office early.

I do not believe this will happen. Macron may not want to admit that his popularity is at rock bottom. This week’s poll found that only 14% of the French support his policies. It is a catastrophic percentage. Macron believes, however, that he has the constitutional legitimacy to continue.

In a deep crisis like the current one, and if Macron were to opt again, in the near future, for early parliamentary elections, it is possible that Marine Le Pen’s far-right could win the most seats. Her party appears, to a significant part of the electorate, as more stable than the left, which is a fragile patchwork of various political opinions.

In any case, whether it is early presidential or new parliamentary elections, France is on the verge of falling into the abyss of deep chaos, caught between two ultra-radical poles. This time, the risk is very serious. The most likely outcome is that France, one of the two pillars of the European Union, will be led by a radical, ultranationalist party, hostile to the European project, xenophobic, and ideologically close to Vladimir Putin.

The other pillar of Europe is Germany. Friedrich Merz, chancellor since May, is in constant decline with public opinion. Only 26% of voters believe in his ability to solve the most pressing problems: the cost of living, housing, immigration, and economic stagnation. The German economy contracted in 2023 and 2024, with sectors such as construction and industry falling back to levels of the mid-2000s. The engine of the economy, the automotive industry, is about a third below its peak 15 years ago and has returned to levels close to the mid-2000s, reflecting a loss of competitiveness and profound structural changes in the sector.

In a recent discussion with German analysts, I was told that the unpopularity of Merz and his coalition is paving the way for the far-right to come to power in 2029 or even earlier. This year, the AfD (Alternative for Germany, a party led by Nazi nostalgists) came second, with almost 21% of the vote. The growing discontent of citizens, competition with the Chinese economy, tariffs and restrictions imposed by the Americans, spending on aid to Ukraine, Donald Trump’s blatant support for German right-wing extremists—who sees the AfD as a way to seriously undermine European unity—, the growing propaganda against foreigners living in Germany, all these are factors that reinforce the electoral base of this racist and Nazi-inspired party. Not to mention that the AfD maintains privileged relations with the Kremlin.

The crossroads in which both France, now, and Germany, in the near future, find themselves represent two enormous challenges for the survival of the EU. They are incomparably more worrying than the consequences of Brexit or the sabotage by Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico. They come at a time when the EU faces a series of existential problems of external origin.

The external enemies are well known. Fear and concessions are the worst responses that can be given to them. Enemies and adversaries must be dealt with with great strategic skill and reinforced unity, only achievable if EU leaders can explain and prove to citizens the importance of European unity and cohesion.

The international scene is much bigger than the USA, Russia, or China. The expansion of agreements with Japan, Canada, Mercosur, the African continent, and ASEAN should be given priority attention. This list does not seek to exclude other partners, it only mentions some that are especially important.

The future also requires resolutely reducing excessive dependence on the outside in the areas of defence, technology, digital platforms, energy, and raw materials essential for the energy transition. Debureaucratising, innovating, and promoting the complementarity of European economies is fundamental. All this must be done while combating extremism. To think that extremists will play by democratic rules once in power is a dangerous illusion. Exposing this fiction is now the urgent priority in France, and the constant priority in all Member States, including Portugal.

2025 Nobel Peace Price: Maria Corina Machado, a decision I support

 My former UN/UNDP Senior colleague Amb. Francis M. O'Donnell sent me the folowing text about Maria Corina Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace.

"I asked AI three questions: "(a) Is the Nobel Peace Prize now drifting from celebrating peace achievements towards rewarding social/political activism? ; (b) How deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize is María Corina Machado? Has she not aligned with fascism, islamophobia, and Trumpism? (c) what is her her human rights record and values explicitly pronounced?"

Here is the response:

QUOTE: 

(a) Nobel Peace Prize Shift Toward Activism: The Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly pivoted from honoring traditional diplomatic achievements to recognizing social and political activism, reflecting a response to global democratic erosion. Historically, awards like those to Willy Brandt (1971) for East-West reconciliation or Desmond Tutu (1984) for anti-apartheid work blended diplomacy and activism. Recent laureates—Malala Yousafzai (2014) for education rights, Nadia Murad (2018) for survivor advocacy, and Maria Ressa (2021) for press freedom—center grassroots resistance against systemic oppression. Critics argue this shift strays from Alfred Nobel’s vision of “fraternity between nations,” pointing to controversial awards like Barack Obama’s (2009) for unfulfilled promises or Abiy Ahmed’s (2019) before Ethiopia’s civil war. Supporters counter that activism confronts modern threats—authoritarianism, disinformation, and inequality—directly tied to peace. The 2025 award to María Corina Machado for her nonviolent fight against Venezuela’s dictatorship exemplifies this, prioritizing civilian-led democratic struggle over elite negotiations. This trend underscores a broader definition of peace, embracing human rights and democratic resilience amid global autocratic surges. 

(b) Deservingness of María Corina Machado: María Corina Machado’s 2025 Nobel Peace Prize is well-earned for her relentless, nonviolent campaign against Venezuela’s authoritarian regime. Winning 92% in the 2024 opposition primaries, she unified a fractured opposition, mobilized millions for free elections, and faced severe repression—expulsion from parliament, campaign bans, and hiding from arrest. Her resilience embodies Alfred Nobel’s ideals of fostering democratic fraternity. Critics cite her virtual appearance at the February 2025 “Patriots for Europe” summit, alongside far-right figures like Marine Le Pen, as fascist alignment. Yet, Machado’s speech focused solely on Venezuela’s democratic crisis, not endorsing the summit’s anti-immigration or “Reconquista” rhetoric, which fueled Islamophobia accusations. Her praise for Trump’s sanctions reflects strategic support for external pressure on Maduro, not ideological Trumpism. These associations, while divisive, are pragmatic outreach in a desperate fight, not evidence of extremist ideologies. Her nonviolent leadership remains a beacon for democratic restoration. 

(c) María Corina Machado’s Human Rights Values and Policies:  María Corina Machado’s human rights stance is rooted in democratic restoration and individual liberties, shaped by Venezuela’s crisis under Maduro’s regime. She advocates for free elections, press freedom, and judicial independence, emphasizing nonviolent resistance to authoritarianism. Her Vente Venezuela party promotes a liberal democratic framework, prioritizing free speech, property rights, and economic freedom to counter socialist policies that fuelled Venezuela’s collapse. Machado has consistently condemned state violence, including arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial killings, demanding accountability for regime abuses documented by the UN. She supports humanitarian aid access to address Venezuela’s 80% poverty rate and mass migration crisis. While her economic liberalism and U.S. sanctions support draw criticism for aligning with Western interests, her focus remains on empowering Venezuelans through transparent governance and civic participation. Her policies reject divisive ideologies, focusing on unity and democratic resilience, aligning with universal human rights principles. “UNQUOTE

Putin and his acts of sabotage: a summary

 This article by Victor Ângelo, published in Portuguese on 3 October 2025 in Diário de Notícias, argues for a firm and aggressive response from European democracies and NATO to what he describes as hybrid warfare orchestrated by Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Key Points of the Article

• The Threat: The recent swarms of drones over military/airport installations, alongside cyber-attacks and political interference, are viewed as hostile acts of hybrid aggression by Russian special services aiming to create chaos, weaken alliances, and divert resources from Ukraine. The attacks are considered to be an escalation beyond mere "tests" of European resolve.

• Indictment of the Kremlin: While these attacks lack a "made in Russia" label, the author asserts that all evidence points to the Kremlin as the instigator of this "disguised, cunning" aggression.

• Proposed Diplomatic Response: The first phase of firmness must be the imposition of more restrictive diplomatic measures against Russia, including:

  • Reducing the number of accredited Russian diplomatic personnel.

  • Limiting their movement to the metropolitan areas of capitals.

  • Tight surveillance of their activities.

  • A protocolary demotion for Russian ambassadors.

  • The aggravation of EU sanctions.

• Proposed NATO Military Response: The Atlantic Alliance must enhance its counter-threat capabilities by:

  • Intensifying patrols and air/maritime defense on the eastern flank and in the Baltic Sea.

  • Increasing technological capacity for identification, jamming, and electronic disorientation of enemy craft, including expanding the use of lasers.

  • Developing low-cost means to destroy invaders, leveraging Ukrainian war experience.

• Violation of Airspace: The author advocates for a strong reaction to serious airspace violations, such as the one over Estonia. While acknowledging the sensitivity, he suggests formally warning Moscow that non-NATO vessels considered a real threat will be shot down, arguing that ambiguity is seen as weakness by Putin.

• Warning to Portugal: The article concludes with a specific warning to Portugal, stating that it is not outside Moscow's orbit. Portugal's vulnerabilities include exposure to espionage, lack of resources to protect its maritime area (used by Russian submarines), and a political class that often underestimates the dangers.

Responding to Putin's threats

 

Respond with Firmness to the Drones, Sabotage, and Threats of Vladimir Putin

Victor Ângelo

The swarms of drones that have recently been flying over military installations and airports in certain Western European states are hostile acts carried out by enemy forces. They should be viewed in parallel with cyber-piracy actions against highly relevant economic infrastructure and as complementary to attempts to interfere in the political life and electoral campaigns of European democracies.

The scale and complexity of these attacks leave no doubt as to their authors. They can only be organized by special secret services, at the behest of a leadership that intends to weaken, create chaos, and shatter our defense alliances and our value systems. They are a threat to the stability of all of us and a cause of great concern, especially for the populations of Eastern and Northern Europe. They are also aimed at diverting attention and forcing the expenditure of resources that could be allocated to supporting Ukraine's legitimate defense.

These aggressive provocations and interventions come with no label or tag that says "made in Russia." But the targeted countries and their allies have every reason to indict the Kremlin's leaders. This is the political stance that must be adopted. Any analysis of the facts inevitably leads to the inescapable presumption that Moscow is launching a disguised, cunning, and hybrid aggression against democratic Europe. We are facing a series of subtle military offensives that, if not met with an adequate response, could lead to an escalation. These are not mere tests to gauge our firmness. We are already in another phase.

The first phase of the response should involve the imposition of even more restrictive diplomatic measures against Putin's Russia. These measures should include non-accreditation of Russian diplomatic personnel beyond a minimum number of officials, the limitation of their scope of action to the metropolitan areas of European capitals, excluding any authorization to circulate outside the capitals, and tight surveillance of the activities carried out by these diplomatic or ostensibly diplomatic agents. Russian ambassadors should face a protocolary demotion in their contacts with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in our countries. Political dialogue with the Kremlin's representatives is of little or no use, except for Putin.

These restrictions would complement the sanctions imposed by the European Union, which, by the way, need to be tightened. Furthermore, the Atlantic Alliance must deepen its capacity to combat these and other threats and provocations. Here there are three fundamental concerns: intensifying air and maritime defense patrols and means on the eastern flank and in the Baltic Sea region; increasing the technological capacity for identification, jamming, and electronic disorientation of enemy vessels, including a significant expansion of radiation beam emitters—"lasers"; and destroying invaders with appropriate, low-cost means. The production of these means must be done on a large scale, in cooperation among member states and taking advantage of the knowledge dramatically developed by Ukraine. There is much to learn from the Ukrainians, even before it becomes necessary to spend fortunes on missiles.

The use of missiles is, however, justified when it comes to violations of NATO airspace by armed Russian fighters. It is an extremely sensitive issue, no doubt. But the 12-minute overflight of Estonian airspace, as happened on September 19 with three MiG-31s, requires an energetic reaction. This time, the Italian air force escorted the intruders out of the Atlantic Alliance's space. But more will be needed: formally and appropriately warning Moscow that new violations of this type will be treated as offensive acts and that, therefore, vessels alien to the Alliance, if considered a real threat, will be shot down. Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General, opted for a more generic and ambiguous statement. Perhaps he was right, but ambiguity, in Putin's case, is understood by him as an attitude of weakness.

It is possible that we will continue to see an intensification of attacks without a label or signature against us. Dictatorships are a form of madness, and dictators consider themselves invincible geniuses.

It is advisable not to conclude without adding that it is a mistake to think that Portugal is outside Moscow's orbit of action. The Kremlin wants us to think that way and knows our weaknesses: the existence of vulnerabilities to enemy espionage operations; the lack of resources to protect our maritime area, which can be used for the circulation of Russian attack and sabotage submarines; and the predominance of a political and intellectual class that does not understand or does not want to take seriously the dangers facing democratic Europe. Putin forgets, however, that Portugal counts on the cooperation of its allies, within the framework of NATO.