Reflecting about 2025

Year-End Notes

Victor Ângelo

If I were asked to summarise 2025 in a single word, I would say “turbulence”. This has been a year of great unrest, and I do not know who should be awarded the top spot on the podium of dishonour: Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, or the rebel Sudanese general Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti. Other names could be added to the list, including terrorist leaders, but it is not worth discussing minor players or making the list excessively long.

The year draws to a close leaving leading geopolitical analysts deeply uneasy. Not for decades has the word war been so prevalent in the speeches of influential people. Now the word appears repeatedly, as if it were an inevitability on the near horizon. It is a disturbing way to end the year. When the conversation about war monopolises the media space and public debate, it makes us forget the role of diplomacy and international organisations, opening the door to disinformation, alienation, and hatred. Thus, war criminals—people who should be driven from power and brought to The Hague—are given a platform and credibility.

After all, what has been learned in 2025? In short, that peace, cooperation, and stability based on respect for international law are not—contrary to the illusion created since the end of the Cold War—the pillars of modern times. They ought to be the foundations of globalisation, but globalisation is not apolitical. On one side of the coin, it is positive. On the other, it creates dependencies, vulnerabilities, and brings back the discretionary use of force. Despite everything, it is fundamental to insist on the positive dimension of globalisation and to condemn without hesitation those who do not respect international norms and refuse to recognise that the future of humanity will only be prosperous if there is solidarity between peoples and peace between States. Believing that a peace agreement can be reached with people like Putin, for example, only enters the minds of ambiguous and incomprehensible actors like Steve Witkoff or well-known fifth columnists like Viktor Orbán.

Putin is a tyrant and, like all other totalitarian leaders, does not recognise the value of diplomacy or deliberation. This week, in an exchange of correspondence with a member of his circle, the gentleman tried to convince me that Putin personifies the sentiment and historical soul of the Russian people. Just as Trump is said to be the personification of the will of the majority of American citizens. I had to remind him of something he already knew: that I have met multiple dictators throughout my professional life. The last thing I would say about such people is that they represent the people to whom they belong. The inflation of their outsized egos is their primary motivation. In truth, they represent only themselves, their boundless ambition, and the opportunists who cling to them. It is all a matter of terrible leadership taken to the extreme. They do not accept peace agreements, let alone the spectre of defeat. The subjugation of those they label as enemies is the only solution they consider in their delusion. A dictator oppresses, creates a false narrative, and a system of absolute control over power. Anyone who thinks they can trust a despot is, quite simply, naive.

This must be one of the lessons of the year. Unfortunately, there are leaders who seem not to have learned it. They claim to be convinced—and want to force others to accept—that it is possible to reach an agreement with a Putin acting in good faith.

He will never agree to sign security guarantees that are actually sufficient to ensure the survival of Ukraine. He has already stated this clearly: any stabilisation force, should one ever be established, must not and cannot include European troops. At best, Putin would accept a force composed of soldiers from underdeveloped countries or, failing that, detachments from vassal regimes or those close to the Kremlin’s policies. Such a stabilisation mission would be merely symbolic, like trying to stop the wind with your hand palms. To have legitimacy and effectiveness, it should result from a genuine and sincere commitment between Ukraine and Russia, and stem from a mandate approved by the UN Security Council. None of this has any possibility of happening in the near future. France and the United Kingdom would veto any resolution that did not offer sufficient guarantees. And Ukraine could not approve a setup essentially engineered in the Kremlin.

Whether one likes it or not, the year now ending must remind us of two other dimensions: that the drawing of borders must not depend on the force of arms, and that whoever initiates aggression against another State must be held indisputably accountable for the crimes committed and the damage caused.

It is essential to remember this at a time when there is discussion in Brussels about what to do with the Russian sovereign funds already frozen in Belgium. These funds must remain withheld until the end of the conflict and until Russia’s just assumption of responsibility for what it has destroyed and for those it has injured and killed in Ukraine. Only then, during peace negotiations, should the fate of these funds be decided. They could be used, including accumulated interest, for war reparations, which would be the most appropriate conclusion. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s allied States should issue common debt intended to finance Ukrainian public spending, in the form of loans guaranteed by the frozen Russian assets, and tighten the sanctions regime against Russia and its international partners. This is, however, a temporary solution. Should the Kremlin continue to insist on prolonging the aggression, the matter must be reviewed. The non-use of Russian assets directly, for now, should be presented as a gesture in favour of peace. But one with an expiry date.

---

Stay at home

This is an exceptional time in our modern history. It’s an extremely dramatic moment for some, and a very challenging menace for the humanity. But there is hope. The cooperation in terms of medical research is greater than what people are being told. It’s just a question of time. And we cannot run out of time. That’s why it is very important to isolate, to stay at home, to delay the contagion. People are getting this message. There was a survey today in Francophone Belgium and close to 90% of those who answered to the question said they are coping well with the mandatory stay-at-home rule. I think these results also reflect what is felt elsewhere, in other parts of the world.

We have a crisis in our hands

In some European countries, today we have reached a turning point. They have adopted very stringent measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic. 

The decisions have nothing to do with President Trump’s harsh words about us, words that were pronounced yesterday, when he was announcing the entry ban on European visitors. 

Today’s measures, adopted in France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere, are just an indication of the level of risk we are confronted with. The pandemic is a major menace, that was the message coming from the different governments. It is huge because nobody knows the dimension it might get, nobody is in a position to guess a timeframe but everyone sees it will have a major impact on human lives, on public resources, on living standards, on lots of economic, financial and social aspects.

In view of that, the preventive measures can only be of an extraordinary nature. Some might seem disproportionate, but who knows what is reasonable or excessive, in a crisis of this dimension?

To be better at fighting radical views

My understanding is that the anti-radicalisation programmes in France and Belgium, at least, are not achieving the expected results. The information available shows that the extremist proselytism is still taking place and that no real action is taken against the preachers responsible for the propagation of such unacceptable and dangerous views. In many cases, the means available to deal with this complex issue are too modest and dispersed.

In some of our societies in the Western part of Europe, the fanaticism touches more families than initially thought. The illegal running of koranic “schools” says a lot about the penetration of religious radicalism within certain communities. This week, for instance, the mayor of Molenbeek, in Brussels, announced that a “school” for children aged between 3 and 8 years had been found operating without any kind of authorization. The place was attended by 38 pupils and the teachings were clearly based on an extreme interpretation of the Koran. That a good number of families had opted to send their children to an establishment of that kind says a lot about the challenges our societies are facing. 

We have to be honest about those challenges. That does not mean we are against the freedom of religion. It simply means we are not blind about the dangers that might come from the radical elements in our communities.  

Brussels diverse ethnic mix

Some statistical figures want us to believe that one in four residents of Brussels follow the Muslim faith. This is a very current subject, as one can imagine, after this week´s bombings. A number of people cannot think about these events without linking them to the Muslim presence in the city, particularly to the Muslim youth. It is of course unfair. But some communities have reached a share of the total population that makes them powerful components of the city tissue. And that has an impact on the human landscape we see in the streets of certain areas, as it has also a bearing on the behaviour of some teenagers in the schools where they form the majority of the students.

These are new societal developments that need to be properly researched. The social scientists in city universities should indeed spend more time on these matters. There aren´t enough academic studies on this changing social environment and its short and long term implications. And as a result, what we know about the diverse communities is based on anecdotal evidence, on personal stories and media reports. It is now urgent to go much further in our knowledge of the city´s cultures and ethnicity. That is for sure one of the conclusions we should draw this week. 

Football is about national dreams

Football is big, big business. But it is also about politics. And in some cases, like in Belgium, it is also about strengthening national unity. The Belgian team has done its bit to bringing together the different communities of a divided country. Yesterday, their loss against Argentina, after a fair game, was in many ways a blow to a few more days of dream. Including the dream that people can unite because they share a common history and background, and also a number of interlinked interests.

Without dreams there is no future. The role of national footballers is to play it right. The role of leaders is also to be able to go for the right game. 

Disconnected

If you want to momentarily forget the world and all its catastrophic or less tragic challenges, just spend the day in a small beach village like De Haan, on the Belgian coast. I did it and I realised, once again, how easy is to ignore the outside world when everything around you is orderly and predicable, the houses are Belle Époque and the people on the streets are just enjoying the quiet and the beauty of the place.

Then, if you put a sunny day on top of it, you are indeed disconnected.

One should be able to disconnect once in a while. In addition to everything else, it gives us a chance to realise how lucky one is because peace, liberty and security have no price. They remain, here, and elsewhere, in Iraq, Ukraine, in the conflict zones and in countries in economic crisis, the ultimate goal for everyone.

And that we should not fail to recall even in a pretty village. 

The capital of Europe is a little village at heart

Belgacom, the Belgian telecommunications giant, could not protect us, the subscribers in Brussels, from an illegal intrusion into our accounts by the British espionage services. The GCHQ, the UK agency that spies on communications networks, has been able to gladly penetrate the Belgacom systems and extract all the information they deemed useful for their masters in London.

Why should one be surprised? I live in a street that is considered “very fine”.  Notwithstanding that I have a weak internet signal. Today, the Belgacom technician came to check, at my request – a request that was made two weeks ago and dutifully booked then to be implemented today. He told me that the line for my house derives from a box some 80 metres away. That´s not bad, I thought. But he added that the fellows that laid down the cables went around the block before reaching my house. Therefore, it was no longer an 80 metres journey but a long trek through the side and back streets. That explains why my signal is not strong enough.

He promised me they would now bring a straight line from the box to my place. When, I do not know. But soon, I am told.

I asked him about fibre cables. The answer I got was very clear. Belgacom has now approved the implementation plan to lay the fibre things. But he is now sure about the starting date of the up-dating.

Well, this is the EU capital. But I think they have not yet realised that at the telecomm company. Another proof of it is that we have no Al Jazeera in our channel list, I mean, no access to that key TV channel in English. If I want to watch it, it is in my room… in Arabic!

Recently I told this story to my friends in Foreign Affairs in Oslo. They couldn´t believe that a place like this one cannot access the English version of Al Jazeera. But they have to understand: Brussels keeps, in many ways, the features of a small town. And that is charming! And frustrating, as well!

A divided country

For reasons of work planning, I had decided that the family’s weekly grocery shopping should take place this morning. Consequently, I drove to my local supermarket, a big place just a mile from home.

My first surprise was to see the car parking pretty empty. Then, I walked to the shop only to find out that it was closed. There was a strike across the board in Brussels and in the French-speaking part of the country, I was told. Attendants working for large commercial stores were among those heavily engaged in the labour action.

Well, a plan is a plan. So, I decided to drive for about seven or eight miles along the same road out of the capital city and do my shopping in the Flemish region. In a supermarket of the same chain the one next to my place belongs to. And I did. In that part of the country what had been called a national strike was a non-event. 

Syria's impact in Europe

The Belgian political leadership sees with great concern a number of young men volunteering to fight side by side with the rebel groups in Syria. They are Belgian nationals with an immigrant background. They come from Muslim families that migrated to Belgium one or two generations ago. Their parents might be mosque-going people but are not extremists. The younger fellows, many of them in their early twenties, make contact with radical groups through informal clubs, sports associations, coffee shops and internet sites. As they feel relatively disconnected from the Belgian way of life and society they are fertile ground for the radical seeds to grow.

The authorities are trying to address the problem. But these informal networks of tiny cells are very difficult to spot and monitor. It is even difficult to have a realistic estimate of the numbers involved. But it is certainly a big issue, if one takes into account the political and security attention the matter is getting these days.