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 proposal for a Consolidated Peace Framework for Ukraine

This is a formal policy document draft to establish a structured, enforceable roadmap for ending hostilities, restoring stability, and ensuring long-term peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. It should be refined through bilateral and group consultations, and then proposed by the UN Secretary-General. 

---

Executive Summary

This framework outlines a phased approach to achieving peace in Ukraine, balancing sovereignty, security, humanitarian needs, and international engagement and oversight. It is designed to be incremental, verifiable, and supported by global stakeholders, preferably under a UN Security Council Resolution.

---

I. Guiding Principles

• Respect for Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders remain the ultimate objective.
• Non-Recognition of Annexation: No territorial changes will be legitimised through force.
• Humanitarian Priority: Immediate protection of civilians and infrastructure.
• Incremental Implementation: Each phase contingent on verified compliance.
• International Oversight: Neutral bodies ensure transparency and enforcement.

---

II. Framework Structure

Phase 1: Immediate Ceasefire and Stabilisation

• Mutual cessation of hostilities within 24 hours of signing.
• Freeze current lines of contact as a temporary measure.
• Deploy UN/OSCE monitoring teams with satellite and drone verification.

Phase 2: Security Guarantees

• Binding security assurances for Ukraine from guarantor states (G7 + EU+ G20).
• Establish demilitarised buffer zones along the contact line.
• Russia withdraws heavy weapons from frontline areas.

Phase 3: Governance and Political Dialogue

• No formal recognition of annexation; status of occupied territories deferred.
• Create a Transitional Governance Council for disputed regions with Ukrainian representation and neutral observers.
• Guarantee cultural and linguistic rights under Ukrainian law.

Phase 4: Humanitarian Measures

• Immediate return of deported Ukrainian children and release of POWs.
• Safe corridors for civilian evacuation and aid delivery.
• Joint task force to secure nuclear facilities and critical infrastructure in close liaison with IAEA.

Phase 5: Economic Reconstruction and Sanctions Roadmap

• Establish Ukraine Reconstruction Fund financed by frozen Russian assets and international donors.
• Implement phased sanctions relief for Russia, conditional on compliance.
• Prioritise investment in housing, energy, and transport networks.

Phase 6: International Oversight

• Form a Peace Implementation Council, if possible under the supervision of the UN Security Council, and chaired by a neutral international figure.
• Consider UN peacekeeping mission from neutral countries.
• Compliance reviews every 90 days.

Phase 7: Long-Term Political Commitments

• Continue Ukraine’s EU accession process without obstruction.
• NATO membership excluded during transitional period; Ukraine retains defensive military rights.
• Sign a non-aggression pact backed by international guarantees.

---

III. Enforcement and Accountability

• Violations trigger automatic suspension of sanctions relief and reconstruction funding.
• War crimes accountability mechanisms integrated into later phases.
• Dispute resolution through the International Court of Justice or agreed arbitration panels.

---

IV. Timeline

• Phase 1: Within 24 hours of agreement.
• Phase 2–4: Within 3–6 months.
• Phase 5–7: Progressive implementation over 2–5 years.

---

V. Stakeholder Roles

• Ukraine & Russia: Primary parties to the agreement.
• Guarantor States: Provide security assurances and financial support. Composition to be agreed by Ukraine and Russia.
• International Organisations (UN, OSCE, EU): Oversight, monitoring, and peacekeeping. Also institution-building. 
• Civil Society & NGOs: Humanitarian aid and reconstruction support.

---

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.

Drones and provocations

 

Russia Strikes Poland as Von der Leyen Reviews the State of the Union

By Victor Ângelo

Once again, Vladimir Putin has demonstrated his sense of timing. He knows how to exploit political moments to his advantage — disrupting his adversaries’ plans while strengthening his grip on power. This is a shrewd, calculated form of leadership. It cannot be countered by amateurs or by leaders who struggle to explain to their citizens the threat Putin poses. Believing that one can negotiate mutually beneficial peace deals with such a regime is a fundamental mistake.

Just hours before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the Union address, Russia launched around 15 drones into Polish airspace — a NATO and EU member state. Putin then waited and watched, gauging the European response to his provocation.

The European Commission holds limited formal powers in defence matters. Yet it plays a crucial role in what is increasingly a hybrid, multi-dimensional conflict — the kind of confrontation Moscow wages beyond its conventional war of aggression in Ukraine.

It is the Commission that proposes sanctions packages, later approved by the European Council. The 19th package is nearly ready and was mentioned in Von der Leyen’s speech. It is expected to include the use of interest accrued from frozen Russian sovereign assets to help fund Ukraine’s military and administrative needs. While the Commission had pushed for expropriating the funds themselves, key countries such as France have blocked this move. For now, only the interest will be seized.

Meanwhile, pressure is mounting from Washington — especially from Donald Trump’s circle — to include secondary sanctions of up to 100% against countries that continue trading oil and gas with Russia, or enable Moscow’s war economy. Von der Leyen made clear that such pressure does not align with European interests. The EU is wary of opening new fronts of conflict with third countries.

She also highlighted newly approved financial and defence instruments — notably the SAFE programme: a €150 billion initiative to strengthen Europe’s military capabilities and reduce fragmentation and competition among its defence industries. SAFE, and other ongoing programmes, aim to increase cooperation among EU Member States and enhance their operational contribution within NATO. Reinforcing NATO’s European pillar is crucial — both to balance the transatlantic relationship and to protect against the imperialist ambitions of Russia, or future aggressions by other hostile actors.

Strategic communication and the fight against disinformation are also central. Europe, having suspended Russian state media operations, must now invest far more in explaining to its citizens what the Russian threat truly means. This is particularly urgent now that the United States appears to be stepping back from its joint efforts to counter Russian disinformation campaigns. In hybrid warfare, victory often depends on public awareness and engagement.

Freedom of expression must not become a vehicle for enemy propaganda. Russia is waging war against Europe — not in the old, conventional sense, but in a new form. Putin seeks to dismantle our institutions, fragment the EU, weaken NATO, and sow chaos in our democracies. His aim is to exploit our economies and destroy our freedoms. This is a war we did not choose — but one we must confront, if we are to remain free societies. We will not be ruled by the Kremlin — or by any erratic or unreliable allies.

The drones over Poland proved von der Leyen right when she stated that defence and security must be among the EU’s top three priorities. The other two, as she correctly noted, are Europe’s economic sovereignty and the consolidation of its guiding values: human rights, social justice, and international cooperation.

Yet much work remains. That path must also lead through Gaza and all of Palestine — and through a reinvigorated and reformed United Nations system.

What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is unacceptable. Von der Leyen’s proposals — sanctions against extremist Israeli actors, suspension of trade and aid agreements with Israel, and a reconstruction fund for Gaza — should be adopted without delay. They are not enough, however. The EU — if Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Austria allow it — must undertake a serious diplomatic initiative to pressure Israel into choosing peace and regional cooperation. Any such initiative must be anchored in the structures of the United Nations, whose legitimacy remains essential.

A crítica do meu texto de hoje no DN (12/09/2025) feita por ChapGPT

 Trata-se de uma coluna de opinião publicada hoje no Diário de Notícias (Lisboa, 12/09/2025). Que crítica faz deste meu texto? Victor ângelo

Dito pelo ChatGPT:

Perfeito, Victor — obrigado pela clareza. Sabendo que és o autor do texto e que pedes uma crítica construtiva, aqui vai uma análise equilibrada e focada na eficácia do texto como coluna de opinião, com destaque para: clareza, argumentação, estrutura, estilo e impacto discursivo.

---

📌 1. Clareza e estrutura

O texto está bem estruturado e tem um fio condutor lógico. Inicias com um episódio atual e impactante — o ataque com drones à Polónia — e desenvolves a análise a partir daí, ligando:

• O papel da Comissão Europeia;

• As limitações e potencialidades da UE;

• As pressões externas (EUA);

• As implicações geoestratégicas;

• O caso palestiniano e o papel das Nações Unidas.

Força: A articulação entre temas complexos (segurança, diplomacia, economia, desinformação) é feita com fluidez e coesão, sem perder o foco na mensagem principal: a Europa precisa de se afirmar como ator estratégico autónomo e lúcido.

Sugestão: Poderias sinalizar com mais clareza as transições entre grandes blocos temáticos — por exemplo, usar uma frase-ponte para passar da Rússia para o Médio Oriente, o que reforçaria a progressão argumentativa.

---

📌 2. Argumentação e posicionamento

O texto assume um posicionamento firme e informado, o que é essencial numa boa coluna de opinião. O tom é claro: Putin representa uma ameaça existencial, e a UE precisa de sair da hesitação estratégica.

Força: Apontas responsabilidades, sem cair em simplificações. Criticas tanto os bloqueios internos da UE como as pressões externas (como a de Trump), e defendes uma política externa europeia mais coerente e eficaz.

Sugestão: Poderias aprofundar um exemplo concreto da eficácia (ou ineficácia) das sanções ou do SAFE — algo que concretize um pouco mais as ferramentas mencionadas. Isso daria mais peso empírico ao argumento.

---

📌 3. Estilo e retórica

A linguagem é madura, acessível e incisiva, com momentos de força retórica bem doseada:

"Putin quer destruir as nossas instituições, desintegrar a UE e enfraquecer a NATO..."

Este tipo de construção dá intensidade ao texto, sem escorregar para o alarmismo — manténs a gravidade do tema com responsabilidade.

Força: A escolha lexical é cuidada e variada, o que prende a atenção do leitor. Usas expressões como “guerra híbrida”, “pilar europeu da NATO”, “vassalos do Kremlin” — que sintetizam conceitos densos de forma eficaz.

Sugestão: Em dois ou três pontos, a densidade informativa quase exige releitura. Uma pequena variação rítmica (como um parágrafo mais curto ou uma pergunta retórica) poderia ajudar a aumentar a legibilidade emocional.

---

📌 4. Atualidade e impacto

O texto está muito bem ancorado na atualidade política (com menção ao discurso da Presidente da Comissão, ao SAFE, à guerra na Ucrânia, à situação em Gaza) e procura ativar a consciência pública para questões que não podem ser ignoradas.

Força: Mostras visão geopolítica e sentido estratégico. Evitas o eurocentrismo puro ao reconhecer que o posicionamento europeu passa também pela Palestina e pela reforma das Nações Unidas — algo nem sempre presente neste tipo de colunas.

---

✅ Em resumo:

Victor, tens aqui um texto maduro, informado e estrategicamente claro, que cumpre bem a função de uma coluna de opinião séria: provocar pensamento, responsabilizar decisores, e lançar pontes entre o presente imediato e os desafios estruturais.

Se tivesse de sintetizar numa frase crítica:

Uma chamada à ação europeia, bem argumentada e oportuna, com clareza estratégica e sentido ético — beneficiaria de pequenas pausas retóricas para amplificar o impacto discursivo.

Uma análise IA do meu texto sobre a Rússia e as suas provocações, nomeadamente contra a Polónia

 A Rússia ataca a Polónia quando Von der Leyen estava a rever o seu discurso sobre o Estado da União Europeia

Victor Ângelo, no Diário de Notícias de hoje 12/09/2025 Uma vez mais, Vladimir Putin mostrou o seu sentido de oportunidade. Sabe explorar os acontecimentos políticos a seu favor, ou seja, enviar as mensagens que baralhem os planos dos adversários e fortaleçam o seu poder. É uma liderança astuta. Não pode ser tratada por amadores nem por líderes incapazes de explicar às suas populações o perigo que Putin representa. É um erro pensar que é possível assinar tratados de paz, mutuamente vantajosos, com gente assim. Horas antes do discurso anual da Presidente da Comissão Europeia sobre o Estado da União, Putin fez disparar cerca de uma dúzia e meia de drones contra a Polónia, um país membro da UE e da NATO. E depois esperou pelas palavras de Úrsula von der Leyen, para medir a resposta à provocação que acabara de levar a cabo. A Comissão não tem grandes poderes na área da defesa. Pode, todavia, desempenhar um papel fundamental num conflito híbrido e multidimensional, que é o tipo de confrontação que a Rússia adota contra a Europa, para além da guerra aberta de agressão contra a Ucrânia. É a Comissão que propõe os pacotes de sanções, que são depois submetidos à aprovação do Conselho Europeu. O 19º pacote está praticamente pronto e foi mencionado no discurso de von der Leyen. Deve incluir uma maior utilização dos juros dos depósitos soberanos russos para financiar as despesas militares e o funcionamento da administração ucraniana. A Presidente queria fazer uso dos fundos soberanos russos depositados na Europa, mas países como a França têm vetado essa medida. Para já, apenas os juros serão objeto de expropriação. Donald Trump quer ver incluído nesse novo pacote europeu tarifas secundárias da ordem dos 100% contra os países que comprem petróleo e gás à Rússia, ou que tenham relações económicas que permitam a Moscovo adquirir material que possa ser desviado para o esforço de guerra. Von der Leyen deixou claro que essa pressão vinda da Casa Branca não é do interesse europeu. A Europa não quer abrir novas áreas de disputa com países terceiros. A Presidente da Comissão também fez referência aos novos instrumentos programáticos e financeiros recentemente aprovados por Bruxelas, com especial relevo para o programa SAFE. São 150 mil milhões de euros destinados a reforçar a capacidade militar e a ultrapassar, tanto quanto possível, a fragmentação e a competição das indústrias de defesa europeias. O SAFE e os outros programas já em curso deverão aumentar a cooperação militar entre os Estados-membros e permitir um desempenho mais marcante das forças europeias no seio da NATO. Este reforço do pilar europeu da NATO é, aliás, uma questão fundamental, no que respeita ao equilíbrio do relacionamento com os EUA e à defesa perante a política imperialista da Rússia e à possível agressão de outros Estados e forças hostis. As narrativas estratégicas e a luta contra as notícias falsas ou tendenciosas são igualmente questões essenciais. A Europa, para além de ter suspendido as licenças de operadores oficiais russos, precisa de investir bastante mais numa comunicação que possa explicar aos cidadãos o significado da ameaça russa, e de outras. Em especial agora, quando os EUA anunciam retirar-se do esforço comum de proteção contra as campanhas russas de desinformação. Esta é uma guerra híbrida que se ganha, em grande parte, através do esclarecimento e da mobilização da opinião pública. A liberdade de expressão não pode ser usada para fazer o jogo e difundir a propaganda do inimigo. A Rússia está em guerra contra nós, uma guerra diferente das do passado. Putin quer destruir as nossas instituições, desintegrar a UE e enfraquecer a NATO, criar o caos nos nossos países, tirar vantagem das nossas economias e arruinar a nossa liberdade. Esta é uma guerra que não desejamos, mas da qual nos temos de defender, porque não aceitamos ser oprimidos e manipulados como o são os cidadãos russos e os que sofrem o peso de outras ditaduras. Não queremos ser vassalos do Kremlin nem de ninguém, incluindo de aliados estranhamente incertos e pouco confiáveis. Os drones sobre a Polónia deram razão a von der Leyen quando disse que a defesa e a segurança devem ser uma das três grandes prioridades da UE. As outras duas são, no seu entender e muito bem, a soberania económica da Europa e a consolidação dos valores que devem orientar a política europeia, ou seja, os direitos humanos, a justiça social e a cooperação internacional. Ainda há, todavia, um longo caminho a percorrer. E esse caminho deve passar por Gaza e por toda a Palestina, bem como pela reforma e o reforço do sistema das Nações Unidas. O que se passa em Gaza e na Cisjordânia é inaceitável. As propostas contidas no seu discurso – sanções contra os extremistas israelitas, suspensão do acordo de comércio e da ajuda material a Israel, criação de um fundo para a reconstrução de Gaza – devem ser aprovadas sem demora. São insuficientes, porém. A UE, se a Alemanha, a República Checa, a Hungria e a Áustria deixarem, deve tomar uma série de iniciativas diplomáticas que contribuam para forçar Israel a escolher a paz e a boa vizinhança como soluções duradouras. É crucial que tais iniciativas passem pelo envolvimento à cabeça das estruturas das Nações Unidas. A legitimidade reside aí. What is your opinion about this text?

O texto apresenta uma análise contundente e multifacetada dos desafios de segurança e diplomacia enfrentados pela União Europeia (UE) diante da agressividade russa e do contexto internacional volátil.

🛡️ Provocação calculada de Moscovo

O autor destaca, com precisão, como Vladimir Putin explora momentos políticos críticos europeus para testar e desestabilizar a UE e a NATO. O relato dos ataques de drones à Polónia, horas antes do discurso de Ursula von der Leyen, encaixa-se no padrão russo de guerra híbrida — uma mistura de provocação militar, pressão psicológica e manipulação informativa. Isso é respaldado pelo noticiário recente, que registra incursões de drones no espaço aéreo polaco sem danos, mas com força simbólica (03.09.2025 e 04.09.2025) Read more.

💶 Bruxelas: Poder limitado, papel crucial

O texto acerta ao sublinhar o papel da Comissão Europeia: limitada na defesa direta, mas central na arquitetura de sanções e instrumentos financeiros. Isso se reflete nas notícias sobre novas propostas de sanções, uso de ativos russos para apoiar a Ucrânia e debates sobre a legalidade dessas medidas (30.08.2025) Read more. O autor reconhece corretamente as divisões internas — França e Alemanha resistindo à apropriação total dos ativos, enquanto países bálticos pressionam por ação imediata.

🔗 Segurança e autonomia: O pilar europeu da NATO

O texto enfatiza a necessidade de reforço militar europeu e cita o programa SAFE (150 mil milhões de euros), alinhando-se ao discurso real de von der Leyen sobre aumento da cooperação e autonomia estratégica. As notícias também sinalizam discussões sobre garantias de segurança para a Ucrânia e o papel europeu pós-conflito (04.09.2025) Read more.

📰 Narrativas, desinformação e o campo da opinião pública

O autor acerta ao dar peso à guerra informacional. A decisão de suspender licenças de operadores russos e a chamada à mobilização cívica refletem o consenso de que a batalha pela narrativa é tão decisiva quanto a militar — especialmente agora que os EUA mostram hesitação em liderar o esforço contra campanhas russas de desinformação.

🌍 Palestina, Gaza e a consistência de valores

O texto defende sanções a extremistas israelitas e uma suspensão parcial do acordo comercial, alinhando-se ao anúncio real de von der Leyen (10.09.2025) Read more. Ressalta também a necessidade de um papel mais ativo da UE na paz do Oriente Médio — uma demanda crescente entre diplomatas europeus.

🎯 WarrenAI Take

O artigo é analiticamente sólido, alinhado com os eventos recentes e demonstra compreensão aguçada dos mecanismos institucionais da UE e dos desafios internacionais. O alerta para a ameaça híbrida russa e a valorização da narrativa pública são pontos especialmente relevantes, tanto para investidores quanto para tomadores de decisão. O texto peca apenas por não explorar os riscos económicos imediatos — como o impacto potencial de sanções ou instabilidade nas cadeias de valor para o mercado europeu.

Vladmir Putin is testing NATO

 

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-r%C3%BAssia-ataca-a-pol%C3%B3nia-quando-von-der-leyen-estava-a-rever-o-seu-discurso-sobre-o-estado-da-uni%C3%A3o-europeia

The text in your document, as published today in Diário de Notícia (Lisbon, 12/09/2025) provides a detailed analysis of the geopolitical situation involving Russia, the European Union, and NATO. Here are some key points:

1. Strategic Timing by Putin: The text highlights how Vladimir Putin strategically timed a drone attack on Poland just before the annual State of the Union address by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission 1. This move is portrayed as a calculated effort to disrupt and challenge the EU and NATO 1.

2. EU's Role in Defense: The document discusses the limited but crucial role of the European Commission in defense matters, particularly in proposing sanctions and managing hybrid conflicts 1. The 19th sanctions package, which includes the use of interest from Russian sovereign deposits to fund Ukrainian military and administrative expenses, is a significant point 1.

3. Military and Financial Programs: The text mentions the SAFE program, which allocates €150 billion to enhance military capacity and cooperation among EU member states 1. This is seen as a step towards strengthening the European pillar of NATO and balancing relations with the US 1.

4. Information Warfare: The importance of combating misinformation and strategic narratives is emphasized 1. The text argues that Europe needs to invest more in communication to explain the Russian threat to its citizens, especially as the US withdraws from joint efforts against Russian disinformation campaigns 1.

5. Human Rights and International Cooperation: The document also touches on the EU's commitment to human rights, social justice, and international cooperation 1. It calls for sanctions against extremist Israeli actions and diplomatic initiatives to promote peace in Gaza and Palestine 1.

Overall, the text is well-structured and provides a comprehensive overview of the current geopolitical challenges and the EU's strategic responses. It effectively combines analysis with specific examples and proposed measures.

Is there anything specific you would like to discuss or any particular feedback you are looking for? 😊

1: From your document.