Putin as a War Criminal

 The arguments justifying calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal stem from a combination of his alleged command responsibility as the head of the state and the International Criminal Court's (ICC) formal indictment for specific crimes related to the war in Ukraine.

The case for calling him a war criminal is divided into three main categories under international law:

---

1. The Crime of Aggression

The primary argument against Vladimir Putin is for initiating the Crime of Aggression—the "supreme international crime"—by launching a full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

• This act violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which requires member states to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

• While the ICC currently faces jurisdictional issues prosecuting the Crime of Aggression against Russia's leadership (as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute), many nations and international legal experts recognize the invasion itself as the foundational criminal act.

---

2. International Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest Warrant

On March 17, 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, holding him allegedly responsible for two specific war crimes committed in Ukraine. This warrant establishes a formal legal basis for the charge.

The warrant alleges responsibility for the following:

• Unlawful Deportation of Population (Children): The mass removal of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine.

• Unlawful Transfer of Population (Children): The transfer of these children to the Russian Federation.

Justification for Individual Responsibility

The ICC warrant states there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for these acts for two reasons:

1. Direct Involvement/Joint Commission: He allegedly committed the acts directly, jointly with others, and/or through others.

2. Failure to Exercise Proper Control (Command Responsibility): He allegedly failed to exercise proper control over the civilian and military subordinates who committed or allowed the commission of the crimes while under his effective authority.

---

3. Broader War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

Human rights organizations (like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and international investigative bodies have documented a litany of additional crimes allegedly committed by Russian forces and leadership that fall under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Putin is implicated through his role as Commander-in-Chief.

These accusations include:

• Directing Attacks Against Civilian Objects: The widespread and systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure, which are protected under the laws of war.

• Indiscriminate Attacks: The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects (such as indiscriminate shelling and missile strikes) in densely populated civilian areas, causing excessive incidental harm.

• Torture and Sexual Violence: Reports of widespread torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian prisoners of war in occupied territories (e.g., Bucha, Izium).

• Forced Detention and Filtration: The mass detention and abusive screening, often called "filtration," of Ukrainian civilians, sometimes followed by forced transfer to Russia.

These documented actions—the systemic nature of which indicates a policy rather than isolated incidents—provide the factual evidence used to argue for Putin's ultimate responsibility.

Paz na Europa

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/o-futuro-da-paz-na-europa-passa-por-um-reequilbrio-de-foras

No Diário de Notícias de 28/11/2025

Peace is about trust: Europe, USA and Russia, a question of balance

 The Future of Peace in Europe Depends on a Rebalancing of Power

Victor Ângelo

Despite the intense diplomatic activity in recent days, we remain far from peace in Ukraine. The plan devised by the Russians and signed by Donald Trump, giving the impression it was an initiative from the White House, collapsed after two or three days. The positions of Zelensky and the European allies rendered it void. They stated in unison, without ambiguity, that it was an unacceptable diktat, a kind of ultimatum from Moscow. It became clear that Trump’s envoy, property developer Steve Witkoff, knows as much about geopolitics as Cristiano Ronaldo or is a contender for the Guinness record as the most brazen Russian agent in recent US history.
Rarely, European firmness proved exemplary. Zelensky’s response was as expected, although the initial announcement of the Russo-American proposal was a heavy blow to the Ukrainian leader. Those who saw images of Zelensky at that moment could see he was deeply shocked. But he did not lose his composure, which was what the Kremlin intended. He responded diplomatically, and three days later there was already another plan, drawn up in Geneva, together with European delegations and Marco Rubio’s team. The latter scored points within Trump’s circle. Will he be able to maintain that influence? It will not be easy, but it is not impossible. For many in the MAGA movement, Rubio is a silent rival to Trump and, especially in the long term, to Vice President J.D. Vance.
It is evident that the American leadership group is becoming fractured. And not only because of differences in handling relations with Russia, but also for internal reasons: the Epstein case, the cost of living, the persecution of immigrants, favours granted to the most eccentric billionaires, etc. In the case of Russia, it is worth remembering that US military doctrine has, for decades, categorised that country as a grave threat to the United States. Thus, many senior US military officers look with great surprise at the relationship Trump has established with Putin. There is something fishy here. Many will think that this relationship has more to do with “ad hominem” blackmail from Moscow than with a new type of diplomacy.
Meanwhile, diplomacy related to the brutal aggression against Ukraine continued in Abu Dhabi. For now, we have a new project, more appropriate. It is fundamentally inspired by Ukrainian realism and has European support. It will certainly not be accepted by Vladimir Putin, but it puts him on the defensive against his American counterpart. Trump wants the war to end at any cost – in reality, it is not a war, but a barbaric aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine – as long as it adds an argument to his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize. That is the ambition, his ego above all else.
We are, however, in a risky phase for Ukraine’s sovereignty and for Europe’s security. Putin believes in two fundamental illusions: that he will shatter Ukraine and that he will manage to create a rift and distance the US from the defence of Europe. In other words, that US support for NATO is numbered. NATO will be, at best, in Putin’s view, a merely symbolic coalition, which will last only as long as Europeans have the financial means to buy American arms and other goods and services.
Peace is built on mutual trust. Without trust, at best, we will have a temporary pause in hostilities. The foundations of that trust regarding the Trump administration were seriously shaken by Washington’s endorsement of the incredible Russian plan. It is essential to rebuild trust between Europeans and Americans.
As for Putin’s Russia, there is no room for any kind of trust. Putin dreams of a vassal Europe, trapped within his sphere of geopolitical influence. He needs that influence out of czarist-inspired narcissism, for economic reasons, and for strategic motives: so he can claim membership in the club of great powers, alongside China and the US. For this reason, he wants to dismantle the Atlantic Alliance and implode the European Union.
Trust is based on shared values. In my view, the most important are those contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
The great powers do not currently respect the basic principles of the Charter: human dignity, human rights, tolerance, independence and sovereignty of each State, large or small, and solidarity among peoples. Democratic Europe, for its part, seeks to remain within this framework of values. Only a minority of movements and political parties here show contempt for these red lines. The majority recognise the importance of democracy and respect for international law. They therefore see Putin as a very serious threat. That is why they focus on defending our part of the continent, starting with the defence of Ukraine and the symmetry of forces, which is something different from peace, but serves peace. And they now understand that the relationship with Trump’s America is dangerously unstable. It must be urgently rebalanced.

A summary of my recommendation about Russia-EU negotiations

 

Summary of Key Points

• US Sanctions on Russian Energy Giants: The United States, under Donald Trump, imposed sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil. The implementation for Lukoil was postponed, allowing time to sell foreign assets and cease activities in Bulgaria, pending US approval. These sanctions threaten the survival of Lukoil and will significantly impact Russia’s public finances, as Rosneft is a major contributor to the Russian budget.

• Effectiveness and Purpose of Sanctions: The main question is whether the resulting financial strain will push the Kremlin towards peace negotiations, which is the US intention. However, the author doubts sanctions alone will quickly change Russian policy. Still, sanctions are justified against regimes violating international law, aiming to weaken Russia’s capacity to continue its aggression against Ukraine and to send a strong message of condemnation.

• International and Humanitarian Considerations: The UN Security Council is unlikely to approve sanctions due to political constraints, so individual states must decide their own measures. Sanctions should respect humanitarian principles, not harm civilians, and aim to resolve the conflict, specifically to end Russia’s unjustified war against Ukraine.

• Kremlin’s Stance and Leadership: The author believes Vladimir Putin is not seeking peace or a ceasefire and expects the war in Ukraine to intensify. Putin is increasingly isolated from diplomatic advice, relying instead on economic and security officials. The choice of Maxim Oreshkin (an economic adviser) to represent Russia at the G20 summit highlights the regime’s focus on economic stability and the importance of economic sanctions.

• Putin’s Geopolitical Ambitions: Putin seeks a legacy as a great Russian leader and only values negotiations with major powers like the US and China, dismissing European leaders as less significant.

• Recommended EU Response: The EU should act on three fronts: continue supporting Ukraine, rigorously enforce existing sanctions, and be ready to engage in serious talks with Russian leaders.

• Role for António Costa and the EU: The author suggests that António Costa, as President of the European Council, should be given a mandate to open direct communication with Putin, aiming to start a dialogue that could benefit both sides and promote peace in Europe.

• Urgency for European Action: There is a pressing need for the EU to act before the US and Russia reach an agreement that sidelines European interests. The EU must be persistent and realistic, recognising that Putin sees negotiations as a means to assert his ambitions, not to seek compromise. The EU should not be discouraged and must assert itself as a major geopolitical player.

Russia and the European Union: dialogue is one of three key dimensions

Russia Must Listen to the European Union
Victor Ângelo

Today, 21 November, was meant to be the day when American sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, two giant Russian conglomerates in the oil and gas sectors, would come into effect. This decision by President Donald Trump, taken a month ago, was recently amended with respect to Lukoil. The company now has until 13 December to sell its foreign assets and until April next year to cease all activities in Bulgaria. Several firms are interested in purchasing the assets in question, but transactions can only be finalised once approved by the Trump administration.

Lukoil, a privately owned company listed on stock exchanges, is a global colossus. Most of its operations take place outside Russia. The profits and dividends it generates weigh heavily on the Russian economy. The decision taken by Washington puts Lukoil’s survival in jeopardy.

For its part, Rosneft, a company controlled by the Kremlin, is the largest contributor to the budget of the Russian Federation. Should the sanctions become effective, they will have a significant impact on the country’s public finances.

The question that remains unanswered, for now, is clear: will the loss of revenue and the resulting budgetary imbalances be enough to convince the Kremlin that there is an urgent need for peace negotiations? That is Trump’s intention. My experience tells me that such an outcome is unlikely. Sanctions, by themselves, tend to have a slow impact on the policies they aim to change.

Nevertheless, I support the application of sanctions against regimes that act outside international law. In this particular case, it is about significantly reducing the financial base and other means that enable Russia to continue its unacceptable aggression against Ukraine. It is also about sending a strong political message of absolute condemnation.

There are no conditions for the United Nations Security Council to approve any package of sanctions targeting Russia. That would, in principle, be the appropriate process. Since it is not possible, each State must decide on the restrictions and pressure it is prepared to exert. However, it must respect humanitarian principles – sanctions must not endanger the lives of citizens in the targeted country – and the sovereignty of third States. They should also aim to contribute to resolving the crisis or conflict, and in this case, to stopping the unjustifiable war for which Russia is responsible.

In my view, neither a ceasefire nor peace are part of Vladimir Putin’s immediate plans. On the contrary, it seems we will continue to witness the intensification of destruction and death in Ukraine, sanctioned by Russia. The Kremlin is betting on war and is convinced it will eventually subjugate Ukraine. The information coming from Moscow indicates that Putin listens less and less to diplomats, including Sergey Lavrov. His main advisers come from the political police apparatus and the economic sphere. Consider who will represent him at the G20 summit this weekend in South Africa: not the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, but the Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office, Maxim Oreshkin. He is an apparatchik with a background entirely linked to the management of the national economy. Concern for economic stability is a priority for Putin. This confirms the importance of sanctions in the economic and financial sectors.

Putin dreams of a victory that will see his name included in the history books of “great and holy” Russia, as he likes to say. His statements, endlessly repeated by the group that controls power and the media in Moscow, reveal a leader who only accepts negotiations with the great powers of the world – Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. The others are seen as minor players, of no value in the international geopolitical chess game. Putin does not wish to waste time in dialogue with European leaders.

The EU must respond on three fronts: maintain aid to Ukraine, rigorously apply the sanctions already approved, and show readiness to begin a serious process of talks with Russian leaders.

With regard to negotiations, my suggestion is simple: António Costa, as President of the European Council, must receive a mandate from the Member States granting the necessary authority to make contact with Putin. His office would then seek to establish lines of communication with the Kremlin, in order to convince the Russians that a cycle of talks between Putin and Costa could be beneficial for both parties and vital for the internal interests of the Russian Federation, as well as for peace in Europe.

There is urgency in moving forward on this front, before the US and Russia reach an agreement over the heads and interests of Europeans. Some will say this scenario is increasingly plausible.

All this must be done without illusions and with great perseverance on the European side. The messages coming from the Kremlin show that Putin sees any possible negotiation as an exercise in asserting his views and ambitions. For him, flexibility, concessions, the search for balance – all these are seen as weakness and admission of mistakes, whether his own or others’. This attitude must not discourage the European side. The EU must put on its boots and enter the geopolitical game, in the only arena that is truly its own, the championship of the great powers. Here lies both an opportunity and a historic obligation.

Mali, Sahel et l'Europe

 

1. Situation critique du Mali

• Mali est au bord de l’effondrement en tant qu’État, la majorité de son territoire étant menacée par des groupes armés, dont des organisations terroristes affiliées à Al-Qaïda, à l’État islamique, ainsi que des milices ethniques.

2. Terrorisme et criminalité organisée

• Le financement du terrorisme au Mali provient principalement de sources locales : exploitation artisanale de l’or (liée à des organisations russes qui ont pris la succession du Groupe Wagner), extorsion, enlèvements, péages routiers, vol de bétail et trafic de drogue. La région est un corridor majeur pour les drogues entre l’Amérique latine et l’Europe.

3. Crise humanitaire et sociale

• On observe un trafic généralisé de personnes, de carburant, de tabac et d’armes. Les écoles fonctionnent à peine, sauf les madrasas religieuses, et le chômage des jeunes est massif, poussant beaucoup à rejoindre des groupes armés.

4. Réponse internationale et géopolitique

• Le président de la Commission de l’Union africaine, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, appelle à une réponse internationale forte, mais l’attention mondiale fait défaut. Le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU et les puissances européennes se sont désengagés, tandis que l’influence russe s’est accrue après l’expulsion des forces françaises et de la mission de l’ONU.

5. Impact sur l’Europe

• L’instabilité au Sahel, dont le Mali, entraîne une augmentation de la migration, du trafic de drogue et de l’insécurité en Europe, ainsi qu’une perte d’influence géopolitique majeure pour l’Europe dans la région.

6. Perspective historique

• L’auteur se souvient d’une époque où le Mali et ses voisins produisaient des intellectuels et géraient mieux la gouvernance. Mais ces dernières années, l’extrémisme, la criminalité, la corruption, la pression démographique, le changement climatique et l’hostilité extérieure envers les idées démocratiques ont aggravé la situation.

7. Négligence européenne

• L’Union européenne est critiquée pour son absence de stratégie cohérente envers le Sahel, ne s’y intéressant que lorsque les conséquences (comme la migration) atteignent ses propres frontières.

Mali and the Rest of the Sahel as Priorities Ignored by European Geopolitics

Mali, a vast country and a mosaic of cultures, is just two steps from Europe and one step from collapsing as a state. Earlier this week, the President of the African Union Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, made a dramatic appeal to the international community—a term that is increasingly vague these days—to prevent the country from falling into absolute chaos. He expressed deep concern about the rapid expansion of various terrorist groups, whose activities are based on two pillars: ethnic-religious fundamentalism and organised crime. The state administration and security forces control only a small fraction of the territory. The rest, including the north, the centre, and the outskirts of the capital, Bamako, are operational zones for armed groups. Some are affiliated with the terrorist web known as Al-Qaeda or the self-proclaimed Islamic State, while others are mainly ethnically based, with Tuaregs and Arabs against the Bantu populations of the south.

The financing of terrorist actions is largely domestic. It includes artisanal gold mining, with the gold then sold to Russian organisations, metamorphoses of the infamous Wagner Group. It is suspected that the gold passes through the important Dubai gold market, where it is converted into currency that then goes to Russia. The Russians aligned themselves with the coup military after two military coups (2020 and 2021) and managed to expel the French presence and the UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSMA). They also maintain indirect contacts with the rebellions and traffickers operating in the Persian Gulf.

The imposition of taxes on the population under religious pretences, the kidnapping of wealthy nationals and the few foreigners who still travel in the affected regions, the control of the main roads—which are only passable for those who pay to travel safely and accept keeping only part of their goods—the theft of cattle, all of this funds the costs of violence. Then there is the issue of drugs: the Sahel, of which Mali is a part, is one of the corridors between Latin America and Europe. In the Sahel, the drug trade buys governments and rebels. And the drugs enter our continent through the weakest points, where control and security measures are insufficient and political governance is more inattentive, as is the case in the Algarve, among others.

There is also human trafficking, with migrants coming from all over West Africa heading to Europe, plus the smuggling of fuel, tobacco, and weapons. It is all cash in hand, in lands without law or order. Schools do not function, except for madrasas run by ignorant fanatics, and there are no jobs for the youth born from an unstoppable demographic explosion. The Kalashnikov has become the only possible livelihood.

Youssouf calls for a robust response against terrorism in Mali and the vast Sahel. It is a fully justified warning, but one that will fall on deaf ears. The UN Security Council, after the forced departure of France from the region, the expulsion of MINUSMA, and the growing influence of the Russians under Vladimir Putin, has swept the region into the corner of the forgotten. The Europeans, who relied on client regimes in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso—governments that received funds from Brussels to curb migratory movements—have been overtaken by Moscow. Putin understands that chaos in the Sahel has a disproportionate negative impact on neighbouring Europe. For Europe, it means more immigrants, more drugs, more insecurity, and a colossal loss of geopolitical influence in the Sahel.

I worked for several years in the region. I knew a Mali and neighbouring countries capable of producing great intellectuals and handling governance matters seriously. That was the generation that grew up in the post-colonial period. Many of them left the country, recruited by international organisations. Others emigrated to France to teach in major schools, or to Canada, a country that easily opened its doors to French-speaking university graduates.

Even then, there were rebellious movements, because certain ethnic groups and populations in the most remote regions felt ignored by the central power of their countries. The most serious conflicts involved those who lived by herding and those by farming. It was a competition between two ways of life that were hardly compatible in those arid lands. But solutions could be found. It was also possible to meet with rebel leaders and negotiate with them. The United Nations and I, as the organisation’s envoy, were treated with respect and moderation.

Everything changed in the last 15 years. Religious extremism, various forms of crime, corruption from the bottom to the top in these states, uncontrollable demographic growth accompanied by climate change—including the harmattan, the dry desert wind, increasingly spreading in the region—and the scarcity of rain, along with hostility promoted by Gulf countries and Russia against democratic ideas, all this has created an extremely complex situation. And we Europeans only remember the Sahel when we see the children of these lands selling trinkets on our beaches and terraces, or being attacked here by parties of xenophobia, hatred, and racism. It is reason enough to ask where the EU’s geopolitical strategy is.

Comment le Président Trump réagira-t-il à ses défaites ?

---

Le Président Donald Trump a peut-être appris quelques leçons des élections qui ont eu lieu cette semaine à New York, dans le New Jersey et en Virginie. Je le dis ainsi, même si c'est avec un certain doute, par expérience personnelle. J'ai travaillé de près avec plusieurs dictateurs et autres absolutistes, et j'ai réalisé qu'ils trouvent toujours une justification à leurs défaites, quand ils ne parlent pas carrément de victoires. Et ils continuent sur la même ligne autocratique, tout en faisant quelques ajustements électoraux et en trouvant des boucs émissaires, des ennemis internes et externes. La faute est attribuée à ces ennemis, plus ou moins inventés et férocement diabolisés. La propagande du régime est alors toujours intensifiée. Je n'ai jamais vu un leader autoritaire quitter le pouvoir de lui-même ou assumer la responsabilité d'une défaite électorale.

Trump a dû remarquer les raisons de ces défaites – ou quelqu'un de son cercle proche aura risqué le courage politique suicidaire de lui signaler.

Premièrement, le coût de la vie et la situation économique des électeurs restent des arguments électoraux importants. New York est l'une des villes les plus chères du monde. Elle occupe la première place en ce qui concerne le coût de la location de logements. Et le prix des produits de première nécessité, comparé au salaire moyen de ses habitants, est proportionnellement l'un des plus élevés de la planète. Le New Jersey et la Virginie ont des taxes et impôts exagérés, des systèmes énergétiques et de santé inabordables, et un manque d'emplois. L'économie est, dans les démocraties, un argument électoral très fort.

Deuxièmement, le pragmatisme attire les votes. Les gens commencent à se lasser de l'intolérance interpartisane, qui est alimentée quotidiennement par les extrémistes aux États-Unis, avec Trump à leur tête. La modération et le réalisme face aux problèmes quotidiens présentent de grands avantages électoraux. C'est une leçon qui peut être valable dans d'autres parties du monde où le vote est libre, au Portugal ou, comme cela s'est produit la semaine dernière aux Pays-Bas. Les citoyens de nos démocraties commencent à en avoir assez des cris, des exagérations et des extrémismes idiots. Ils veulent des propositions de solutions qui répondent à leurs inquiétudes et difficultés fondamentales. Ils ne veulent pas non plus de médias qui amplifient les radicalismes verbaux et les comportements grossiers.

Troisièmement, l'opposition à l'instabilité, à l'inhumanité et à la mauvaise et dangereuse gouvernance de Trump est en croissance. Dans le sondage CNN/SSRS de la semaine dernière, le niveau d'approbation du président avait chuté à 37 %. Il continue d'être soutenu inconditionnellement par une frange significative de Républicains, mais la tendance chez les indépendants est en baisse continue. On constate également qu'une partie des Démocrates qui ont voté pour lui il y a un an le regrettent maintenant.

Trump peut être considéré comme un mauvais gouvernant et un membre éminent parmi les leaders autocrates qui sont à la tête de plusieurs pays, mais je suis certain qu'il sait ce qu'ils savent tous : l'essentiel est de ne pas perdre le pouvoir. Pour y parvenir, ces gens créent des fictions et de faux récits, surtout ceux qui peuvent le plus effrayer, déstabiliser l'électorat et stimuler la haine contre les segments de la société qui peuvent être accusés d'être étrangers et d'avoir des comportements différents.

Il a tenté de le faire avec le vainqueur de l'élection à la mairie de New York, Zohran Mamdani. Ce candidat, qui a fini par vaincre non seulement Trump mais aussi les élites habituelles du Parti Démocrate, réunissait toutes les conditions pour être une cible politique facile à abattre : musulman par religion, socialiste démocratique par conviction et fils de parents immigrés, d'origine afro-indo-pakistanaise. Il a gagné et a montré que la religion ou la condition d'immigré ne sont pas des arguments qui pèsent lourd dans une société démocratique avancée. Sadiq Khan, le maire travailliste de Londres, l'avait déjà démontré en étant élu en 2016. En 2018, Khan a été considéré par le magazine Time comme l'une des 100 personnes les plus influentes de la planète. Je ne vois aucun politicien portugais sur les listes du Time.

Au cours des 12 prochains mois, avant les élections de mi-mandat au Congrès fédéral, Trump tentera de saboter la gouvernance de Mamdani et des deux gouverneurs nouvellement élus. Il fera de même contre tous les Démocrates à la tête d'autres États et villes. C'est ainsi que se construit le faux récit de l'incompétence des adversaires. Il poursuivra également le déploiement de militaires de la Garde Nationale dans les villes à majorité démocrate, pour faire prévaloir dans l'opinion publique l'idée que l'opposition démocrate est synonyme de chaos social et d'incapacité à lutter contre la criminalité.

Au niveau international, il cherchera à démontrer une main ferme et guerrière contre le Venezuela, la Colombie et le Nigeria, entre autres. Il ne montrera pas de fermeté contre la Russie ou la Chine. Le style de Trump passe par la subordination face aux forts et la force brute contre les plus faibles. Il sait qu'il ne doit pas attaquer les puissances fortes. Mais les autres pourront facilement être vaincus, certains sous le prétexte de la lutte contre le crime organisé qui trafique de la drogue vers les États-Unis, d'autres sous l'alibi inventé de la défense des pratiquants de la foi chrétienne. Dans les deux cas, nous avons là des sujets qui peuvent mobiliser les électeurs et peindre un portrait noble et déterminé de Trump. 

Dans la politique du faire-semblant, l'image compte souvent plus que la vérité. Après ces défaites, Trump va jouer dur et sale, accentuant son autoritarisme. Les Américains et les Européens auront-ils le courage d'élever la voix et de dire non, ça suffit ?

Como irá responder o presidente Trump às suas derrotas? --Uma análise do meu texto de 7/11/2025

Texto publicado hoje no Diário de Notícias em Lisboa.

Para avaliar a qualidade do seu texto, que é a crónica de Victor Ângelo sobre a reação de Donald Trump às derrotas eleitorais, vou analisá-lo com base nos seguintes critérios: Estrutura e Coerência, Argumentação e Força da Tese, Estilo e Linguagem e Conteúdo e Informação.

1. Estrutura e Coerência (Excelente)

O texto apresenta uma estrutura clara e muito eficaz:

• Introdução: Apresenta a tese central (Trump não aprenderá, mas sim intensificará o estilo autocrata, justificando a derrota e culpando inimigos) e estabelece a credibilidade do autor através da sua experiência com líderes absolutistas.

• Desenvolvimento (As Lições): O autor articula as três razões principais para as derrotas que Trump devia notar: 1) Economia/Custo de Vida; 2) Pragmatismo e Moderação (cansaço do extremismo); 3) Crescente Oposição a Trump.

• Desenvolvimento (A Reação de Trump): Passa da análise das causas para a previsão da reação, ligando-a ao seu padrão autocrático (criação de ficções, medo e ódio).

• Exemplos e Projeção: Usa o caso de Zohran Mamdani como prova de que a estratégia de ódio falha. Projeta, de forma concreta, as táticas futuras de Trump (sabotagem da governação, mobilização da Guarda Nacional, política externa agressiva contra os fracos).

• Conclusão: Retoma o tom de aviso e o desafio final à coragem dos americanos e europeus.

A progressão do argumento é lógica e coerente, ligando a teoria (ditadores) à prática (Trump) e às consequências (estratégia futura).

2. Argumentação e Força da Tese (Muito Forte)

A principal força do texto reside na sua tese arrojada e bem sustentada: a resposta de Trump será previsível, seguindo o manual dos autocratas.

• Força Analítica: A separação das razões das derrotas em três pontos (Economia, Pragmatismo, Oposição) é incisiva e baseada em tendências eleitorais sólidas.

• Ligação Causa/Efeito: A conexão entre as "lições" (que Trump ignora) e a sua "resposta autocrata" (que ele adota) cria um poderoso contraste argumentativo.

• Uso de Exemplos: Os exemplos de Zohran Mamdani e Sadiq Khan reforçam o argumento de que a diversidade e o pragmatismo democrático estão a vencer as táticas de polarização.

3. Estilo e Linguagem (Muito Bom)

A linguagem utilizada é culta, clara e assertiva.

• Vocabulário: Rico e preciso (e.g., "absolutistas", "bodes expiatórios", "diabolizados", "boçais").

• Tom: O tom é crítico e de alerta, mas mantém uma objetividade jornalística/analítica. A expressão "arriscar a coragem política suicida" é particularmente forte e bem empregada.

• Ritmo: O texto flui bem, com frases que, embora complexas, são pontuadas de forma a manter o leitor envolvido.

4. Conteúdo e Informação (Relevante e Enriquecedor)

O texto não se limita a relatar factos, mas insere-os num contexto geopolítico e histórico mais vasto.

• Informação Específica: Refere dados concretos (sondagem CNN/SSRS, custo de vida em NY) e exemplos eleitorais específicos (Mamdani, Khan, eleições em NJ e VA).

• Enquadramento Histórico/Político: O enquadramento de Trump no arquétipo do líder autoritário é o que confere maior profundidade ao texto.

---

Resumo da Avaliação

Critério	Avaliação	Notas de Qualidade
Estrutura	Excelente	Introdução, desenvolvimento e conclusão bem definidos e lógicos.
Argumentação	Muito Forte	Tese clara (Trump segue o manual autocrático), sustentada por lições eleitorais e previsões táticas.
Estilo/Linguagem	Muito Bom	Linguagem assertiva, vocabulário culto, tom de análise/alerta.
Conteúdo	Forte	Insere eventos específicos (eleições) numa análise política e histórica de longo alcance (autocratismo).

Em conclusão, o texto é de elevada qualidade. É uma peça de análise política sofisticada, bem escrita, bem estruturada e com uma tese central muito poderosa.