The Space Geopolitics

Superpowers, creative billionaires, and the dispute over outer space

Victor Ângelo 

International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General Published: 5 Jun 2026

Outer space is already a paramount issue in the competition between great powers. Consequently, the deserts of northwestern China, in Xinjiang and Gobi, attract very special attention. Satellite imagery reveals vast military complexes and an extensive network of many dozens, even hundreds, of rocket launch pads, bunkers, and enormous, heavily fortified structures. Built near nuclear silos—which house China’s longest-range intercontinental missiles—this infrastructure aims to guarantee an immediate retaliatory capacity should the country suffer a first strike.

This terrestrial fortress is only half the story. The bunkers excavated in the sand are intimately linked to Chinese surveillance satellites, together forming an integrated ground and space defence system. The assets concentrated in the desert depend directly on their orbital counterparts: the Huoyan-1 early-warning satellites. These "eyes of fire", capable of detecting the infrared signature of enemy missiles immediately after their launch, open a critical three-to-four-minute window, allowing the Chinese chain of command to order the firing of weapons stored in the silos before they can be destroyed.

We are in a different world from the old space race. In the late 1950s and the subsequent decade, the focus was on the national prestige and political image of the US and the USSR. The marathon of space competition has changed. Today, it is a high-speed and high-risk race.

Space is one of the great strategic priorities of the present. Much of what resides in low Earth orbit governs our daily lives: global logistics, financial synchronization, communications, disaster response, and encrypted military operations. The country that masters the technical standards, extracts the first cosmic resources, and controls the orbital infrastructure will obtain an ambivalent power over the global economy and planetary defence, capable of serving human progress as much as military hegemony and a global disaster.

The current space arena is thus a vital geopolitical dispute, marked by four distinct political approaches. Each power runs its own race.

European priorities are concentrated on the development of space infrastructure essential to ensure strategic communications, on the Galileo (GPS navigation) and Copernicus (continuous Earth observation) projects, on the tracking of orbital debris (see the reference to Kessler below), and on research regarding robotic launches. The scarcity of venture capital and fragmentation—every country for itself—are the political issues that need to be resolved.

The United States has consolidated its reliance on public-private partnerships in the aerospace sector. Through the Artemis Accords, Washington seeks to promote international norms that favour free enterprise to maintain its supremacy, leveraging the agility and efficiency of the private sector. Artemis aims to establish a sustained human and robotic presence on the Moon, testing new technologies for the extraction of water and minerals.

China views space through a deeply integrated civil-military lens. For Beijing, it is a strategic domain subject to state control. The Chinese vision constitutes an explicit challenge to US primacy. In this context, China prioritizes the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), seeking to secure a sovereign infrastructure independent of Western systems. The exploration of the lunar South Pole has become a central objective.

Russia was once a pioneering actor. Today, despite financial constraints and sanctions that limit access to technological components, the space sector continues to be treated as a priority. It retains a highly secretive character. However, it is known to invest primarily in the research and testing of destructive anti-satellite weapons, space-based intelligence, and hypersonic weaponry. This option holds considerable strategic value, both defensive and offensive.

The explosion of space business, operating on an unprecedented financial scale, is another characteristic of our era. The current US dominance is largely driven by private giants such as Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin and, most notably, Elon Musk's SpaceX. By pioneering reusable rockets, SpaceX has drastically reduced launch costs. With a capitalization that already rivals the GDP of major states, the company has rewritten the rules of orbital geopolitics.

These private companies have ceased to be mere service providers. Today, they are central geopolitical actors, wielding enormous economic weight and playing a decisive role in American defence. But, with high economic value comes severe strategic vulnerability. In any potential conflict, the temptation to blind an adversary by destroying their early-warning and communications satellites could be limitless.

An attack of this kind—or even an accidental collision between satellites in orbit—would have devastating systemic effects. There is a risk of triggering the so-called Kessler syndrome: a catastrophic chain reaction in which orbital debris collides with other satellites, generating exponentially more fragments. This would rapidly create a global crisis, with Earth's orbit saturated by high-speed debris directly impacting multiple essential systems. It would not only affect military deterrence: it could compromise the terrestrial economy and provoke a civilizational regression of incalculable consequences.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is no longer fit for an era marked by thousands of objects in orbit—a continuously growing number—and by the development of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. The Second Space Race, which is currently underway, demands cooperation and far stricter rules—a new treaty. Space cannot be viewed merely as a competition or an extraordinary business opportunity. It is our collective survival that is at stake.

Trump, Davos and a changing world

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/trump-davos-e-o-mundo-real

Trump, Davos and the Real World

Victor Angelo

Much of political activity is spectacle, and the best charlatans often win the most coveted prizes. This was a week rich in such matters.

It started with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the avalanche of measures he immediately took. As the days went by, they filled the most visible space in the media. The repercussions of his election were a recurring theme, both in the press and in the most varied political meetings. On Tuesday, there was even room for a long audiovisual performance between the presidents of the Russian Federation and China. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping wanted to remind everyone that they have a special relationship, when it comes to competition with the US.

It was, however, an ambiguous message. Trump had invited the Chinese leader to the inauguration ceremony, thus showing who weighs on his international agenda, in addition to half a dozen crazy extremists or close friends of his current pet squire and sidekick, Elon Musk. On the other hand, during the week and without much commitment, in a sort of aside, Trump criticized Putin for not being interested in opening a peace process with Ukraine.

Trump is particularly interested in the relationship with China, considering it the real rival of the US. And he sees the competition as a question of economics and political influence, of world leadership, and not so much as a question of defense, as he does not believe that Beijing will one day be able to surpass American military power. Careful observation of certain indicators leads me to conclude this, as well as that his objectives include undermining the alliance between Putin and Xi and preventing the formation of a hostile pact in the Global South. In fact, one of the threats he made in recent days was against the BRICS. It seems clear that he will do everything to prevent such an understanding, that type of organisation.

His inaugural address can also be seen as a particularly important message for Xi: if China were to take military action against Taiwan, the current administration in Washington could view such aggression as none of its business, just as a Chinese internal affair, and therefore would not intervene. Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of engaging in any wars other than those directly directed against American interests. The Taiwan question, in the American president's mercantilist philosophy, does not present the same dangers that possible attacks against Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Southeast Asia or certain islands in the Western Pacific would represent.

In citing the Asian priority, Trump and those in his orbit seem to have those countries in mind above all, as well as freedom of navigation in the seas surrounding China and in the Indian Ocean. In one case, to hinder Chinese expansion and gain access to waters close to North Korea. In another, because the Indian Ocean allows the US Navy to easily target the Middle East and Iran. The concentration of a significant maritime force in the Indian Ocean and the vast presence in the Diego Garcia atoll allow the US to be present in the region that can seriously threaten Israel and defend the production and trade of oil and gas from countries that are fundamental to the stability of the Middle East. East, without the Americans needing to have troops on the ground.

India's stability is an equally paramount factor. Trump seems to be paying no attention to this evidence. Many of those in Davos for the annual meeting of the Economic Forum, the other major political event of the week, felt that India is increasingly becoming one of the world's major economic players. It does not have, nor will it have in the coming years, the necessary capacity to be a serious rival to China or the USA, as it lacks national unity and a strong central power, but it does have the ingenuity, the creative ability, the population size, a diaspora of scientists and a geographic location that work strongly in its favor. The European Union should pay special attention to its relationship with India. For all these reasons and also to reduce the relative weight of the US and China in the European economy and international alliances.

Interestingly, in the same week in Davos we had the great annual mass celebrating multilateralism and globalization, and in Washington, the solemn enthronement of its opposite. Davos returned to focus on major global issues and the need for international cooperation. Although in most cases it is just an opportunity for good conversations and to renew contacts, drink champagne and taste caviar, this year it had the merit of highlighting that there is more to the world beyond the megalomania of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other multibillionaire limpets.

Trump. Musk and Europe

 Europe faces the challenges of the Trump-Musk duet

Victor Angelo

No one knows for sure what's coming. Even American billionaires, people used to doing whatever they want, feel that the rules of the political game are changing. Many decided not to wait for the inauguration to show their subordination to the ideas and plans that the president-elect has already announced. It is an unusual submission. Is this a question of agreement of views, or mere opportunism? In fact, it seems to result from a combination of these two dimensions, a bet on a limitless nationalist economic liberalism and the hope of exponential growth in the balance of their personal accounts.

The absolute masters of cyber technology, digital platforms and mainstream media began to change their tune from the moment they realized that Trump would return to the White House. The latest example comes from Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and other global platforms. Yesterday's moralist has in recent days become a follower of the methods that Trump advocates. And that Elon Musk inspires.

Trump and Musk make up a team of unhinged and strangely reactionary narcissists. That's what we have, the choice is made. They pose an immeasurable danger to the stability of the United States, neighboring states and also to democratic Europe. And they don't just influence billionaires. Their tentacles are vast and powerful. Trump has transformed and pocketed the Republican Party, the Supreme Court, and controls all other branches of federal power. And Musk has in his hands key sectors of the economy and two essential instruments to manipulate public opinion – the X platform and his colossal fortune.

Trump and Musk reflect a dictatorship of a new kind, supported by an alienated, ultra-nationalist, arrogant, materialistic and selfish majority. It's populism on the attack, with modern techniques and a dominant economy. They relegate a dictator like Vladimir Putin to the second division of the championship. And although they consider themselves to be in competition with China, they are convinced that this game will end with their opponent's defeat. They forget or do not know that it is a fatal mistake to underestimate the competition between great powers. History shows us that rivalries like this have in the vast majority of cases ended up causing terrible armed conflicts between the antagonists. With fools in power, the likelihood of repeating certain tragedies experienced in the past is a possibility that cannot be ignored.

For the European Union, it is essential to know how to respond to the Trump-Musk Administration. In these situations, and first of all, our best response is active, intense and formal diplomacy. This means frequent contacts, discussions on equal terms, based on recognized values, reciprocity of measures and an essentially protocolary behavior, without effusions, in dealing with the Americans.

As far as possible, the point of contact on the European side should be well defined, be managed at the highest level and be based as much as possible on consensus. We cannot have, for example, Georgia Meloni expressing one position and Emmanuel Macron another. This is where the famous observation wrongly attributed to Henry Kissinger would make perfect sense: when Trump wanted to discuss with Europe he would call the designated contact. They will tell me that with Trump, rules and predictability do not count. I would retort that one must insist.

A second element of the response must involve strengthening the cooperation between Europe and certain regions of the globe, especially those that have a more tenuous relationship with the US: Africa and Latin America. To these I would add China and India, but with special precautions. Political and economic relations with these two giants are important for Europe, but they require a lot of balance, wisdom and extreme vigilance. And I wouldn't forget either Canada or Japan.

The third pillar of the response would consist of strengthening European integration, including in matters related to culture, banking union and defense. Culture helps us imagine our common future. The defense calls for coherence and more operational and industrial coordination. Trump's political line does not necessarily include military protection of Europe. With or without NATO, Europeans must be able to guarantee their independence. Relying excessively on distant and unpredictable allies is not a policy that can be recommended.

2025: My views and my contribution to the debate

 10 January 2025

A year that calls for common sense, clarity and a lot of courage

Victor Angelo

 

In this first text of the new year, I seek to share some of my vision on the major global challenges that we will have to face in the next twelve months. Some of these challenges come as a continuation of the immense political difficulties that marked the international scene in 2024. Their trajectory in 2025 appears to continue in the direction of worsening. I see the stakes on moderation and peace as extremely complex and difficult, but absolutely necessary.

Added to these concerns are new problems, among which the following stand out: 1) the inequities and madness that the Donald Trump/Elon Musk Administration will introduce into international relations; 2) the acceleration of the use of Artificial Intelligence to respond to the designs and control of the strategic agenda by various imperialisms; and 3) access to power in several Western democracies, and elsewhere, by ultra-reactionary parties inspired by Nazis, fascists or simply xenophobic influences. Austria was, this week, the most recent example of this trend, that is, of the shift in public opinion towards populism and extremist nationalism. Herbert Kickl, leader of the far-right FPÖ party (symbolically called the National Social Party, an appellation inspired by the party of a certain Adolf Hitler), was invited to form a government.

This kind of perspective requires clear and courageous ambitions. Most of our leaders talk a lot, but their statements are vague, even incomprehensible in some cases. They do not understand the current context, nor can they imagine the future. They use the media to sell us the past and to maintain the illusions on which their power is based. It is up to us to combat these attitudes, but it is not easy. Access to the market for realistic and humanist ideas is increasingly narrow. Just look at who has access to airtime to understand how difficult it is to see on any screen who has the courage to dismantle the illusory contexts that serve as a basis of support for the bosses of the main political parties or for the leaders of some regional or global powers.

Anyone who has influence and authority should have at least five major ambitions.

First, peace. It's 2025, not the past. The great powers, but also each one of us, must abandon the idea that problems can be resolved by force of arms and ultimatums. With technological advances, wars only serve to cause the cruellest human suffering.

Second, the preservation of universal values. International law has made enormous progress since 1945. Its principles must be respected. With balance, equally, whether it is country A or B. Double standards lead to the discredit of universal ethics.

Third, respect for the life and fundamental rights of each person. This is the issue that receives the most emphasis when talking to the inhabitants of the most forgotten areas of the world, in the regions where many of the conflicts occur.

Fourth, reduce the underdevelopment gap. After several years of success, we are now moving in the opposite direction. The increase in economic and social disparities is, on the one hand, a source of tension, instability, hostility towards more developed countries, uncontrolled migration and environmental deterioration. On the other hand, it generates racism, xenophobia, contempt and indifference towards the poverty of many.

Fifth, contribute to the revival of the political role of the UN. I do not want to enter the debate about the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. But I cannot help but remember the importance of the United Nations Charter. We must insist, repeatedly, on absolute respect for the principles defined there.

The defence of Europe's democracies will certainly be a central issue in 2025. However, reducing the issue to the expansion of our defence industries is a mistake. It is also unrealistic and destabilizing to demand spending that would represent 5% of each State's GDP out of hand. The real challenge is to be able to build a coherent and shared European defence policy, which recognises the main dangers and considers, in a consensual manner, the possible contribution of each country.

This is essentially a political issue. There will be States whose current leaders will feel closer to the enemy than to our regimes of freedom. This year’s debate cannot ignore this reality. We will have to define a common position towards these individuals. There is another key question: to review and update the relations between the US and other NATO members – a subject that deserves a very detailed reflection at the appropriate time.