Letter to President Vladimir Putin: Christmas 2025

Formal Diplomatic Communication

Date: December 23, 2025

To: His Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation

Subject: Strategic Realignment, UN Charter Compliance, and the Restoration of the European Security Architecture

Your Excellency,

In the interest of regional stability and the prevention of a systemic collapse of the Eurasian security architecture, I write to you to propose an immediate pivot toward a negotiated settlement. The ongoing aggression against Ukraine has created a breach of the peace that now threatens not only the immediate belligerents but the very foundations of the United Nations Charter, which the Russian Federation, as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, is sworn to uphold.

Central to this appeal is a return to Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. To ensure that a ceasefire is not merely a pause in hostilities but the start of a durable peace, I urge the Russian Federation to engage with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) through the following Chapter VII enforcement mechanisms:

Proposed Chapter VII Enforcement Framework

The invocation of Chapter VII provides the legal authority necessary to guarantee that any peace agreement is both enforceable and permanent:

• Provisional Measures (Article 40): The UNSC should demand a synchronized withdrawal of heavy weaponry to a verifiable distance, monitored by a neutral UN-mandated mission.

• Compliance-for-Relief (Article 41): A roadmap for the phased de-escalation of economic and diplomatic restrictions in correspondence with verifiable military withdrawal and the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty.

• Security Guarantees (Article 42): The authorization of a Robust Peacekeeping Operation to enforce a demilitarized zone, providing strategic depth without unilateral military presence.

Revitalization of the NATO-Russia Founding Act

Beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities, a long-term solution requires the renewal and modernization of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security. A revitalized Act would provide the institutional framework needed to transition from a "balance of terror" to a "balance of interests." 

I propose the following Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) to restore a baseline of predictability:

• Institutionalized De-confliction: Re-establishing the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) at the permanent representative level, supplemented by a 24/7 military-to-military "hotline" between the Russian General Staff and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

• Transparency of Exercises: A commitment to mandatory pre-notification of all military maneuvers involving more than 9,000 troops and the reciprocal invitation of observers to all drills, exceeding the standards of the Vienna Document.

• Strategic Restraint Zones: Negotiating "zones of limited deployment" along sensitive borders where neither side would station permanent, substantial combat forces or nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles.

• Joint Risk-Reduction Centers: Creating a shared facility for real-time data exchange on missile launches and large-scale troop movements to eliminate the potential for miscalculation or accidental escalation.

The Role of the Security Council as Guarantor

The UN Security Council must act as the primary guarantor of this new arrangement by codifying any final agreement into a binding Resolution. This elevates a bilateral truce to an international legal obligation, making any future violation a matter of collective global response.

A return to the diplomatic track, anchored in the legal weight of the UN Charter and the revitalized principles of the Founding Act, offers the only viable path to a stable, peaceful, and prosperous continent.

Framework for War Reparations and Reconstruction

A sustainable peace is inseparable from the principle of accountability for material and moral injury. In accordance with the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), I propose that the peace process incorporate a structured reparations mechanism. This would involve utilizing the recently established International Claims Commission in The Hague to adjudicate claims recorded in the UN Register of Damage.

To facilitate this, I suggest a "Reparations-for-Reintegration" roadmap: a negotiated schedule wherein the satisfaction of adjudicated claims—covering infrastructure reconstruction, environmental damage, and civilian compensation—is linked to the phased and orderly release of immobilized Russian sovereign assets. This multilateral approach ensures that the immense financial burden of reconstruction is addressed through a legitimate legal process, providing a transparent "off-ramp" for the restoration of Russia's standing in the global financial system while upholding the rights of the victims of the conflict.

Respectfully,

Victor ÂNGELO
Former UN Special Representative/USG

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the response:

QUOTE: 

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

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

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

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.

Freedom in a digital world

Digital activism in a framework of uncertainty

Victor Ângelo

 

I participated this week in a webinar about "Internet and Geopolitics". The question at the centre of the debates was very direct: is a global, universal, and open internet possible?

The question came from civil society associations that militate for digital freedom. And they follow the line of the United Nations: in June 2020, António Guterres proposed a Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, with the aim of achieving that by the end of the decade every person can access the internet at a minimum cost and without obstacles.

The reality is very different. At this moment, there are two parallel digital universes. The international one, essentially North American, built around platforms that are part of our everyday life. And the Chinese, a reproduction of the Western constellation. We can subscribe to the Chinese platforms, but the residents of China do not have access to the international networks, which are blocked by Beijing. So, the answer to the central question can only be negative. Access to the internet is, in autocratic regimes, limited or banned for political reasons. 

Beyond calls for multilateralism, new 'silk routes' and progress in communications and transport, we are moving fast towards a historical phase of fragmentation and open rivalries between blocs of countries. In the digital area, this competition centres on the issues of artificial intelligence, data clouds, cybersecurity, espionage, competing political narratives and surveillance of citizens.

Those in power, whatever they may be, increasingly use social media to influence public opinion, manipulate political discourse and create an interpretation of reality that is favourable to them. Donald Trump has excelled in this art. Today, Narendra Modi is the incumbent leader who is followed by the largest number of people, some 175 million. Modi knows that images attract attention if they are intuitive, dynamic, colourful, and empathetic. In Portugal, António Costa has around 266,000 followers on Twitter. It's not much, but in our country, what continues to weigh is the frequent presence on free-to-air television channels. President Zelensky's official Twitter account has 6.2 million subscribers. The Ukrainian leader has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for communication through digital media.

As a curiosity, note that Cristiano Ronaldo has around 445 million followers on Instagram, Lionel Messi 329 million and Khaby Lame, an Italian influencer of African origin, is followed by 136 million via TikTok. What would happen if one of them launched into political activism?

As for the confrontation with Russia, it seems clear to me that it will contribute to the deepening of geopolitical fractures. Nobody knows how the war of aggression against Ukraine, or the huge crisis triggered between Russia, the United States and the various NATO countries will evolve. However, it is clear that we are still on an escalation course, in a highly complex and exceptionally worrying context. On the one hand, it is not acceptable to systematically violate the international order, as defined in the United Nations Charter, nor to disrespect with impunity the institutions that are the pillars of peace and security, such as the International Court of Justice. Nor is it acceptable that international law, the basis of relations between states, should no longer apply to the major powers, giving primacy instead to their geostrategic interests, in the old concept of force as the main lever of power. On the other hand, there is a very serious risk of a new, large-scale, global confrontation.

In this context, my suggestion is simple: civil society can use the digital platforms to tip the balance towards the side of law, moderation, and peace. And start by promoting international agreements on cyber non-aggression to critical infrastructures, essential for the daily life of every citizen.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 27 May 2022)

 

 

 

Looking at a possible UN role in Ukraine

UN: a roadmap for peace in Ukraine

Victor Angelo

 

More than a month has passed since an open letter was sent to the UN Secretary-General on the situation in Ukraine, signed by former senior officials. Meanwhile, António Guterres has been in Moscow and Kyiv, and has managed to push forward the UN humanitarian response. The political dimension, however, continues to be determined elsewhere. In general, words coming out of the West have been accentuating the possibility of a Ukrainian victory. Statements of this kind tend to aggravate the confrontation. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in arms support to Ukraine and that this is positive, as it allows for a redoubling of self-defence efforts. But in public, we should only talk about self-defence and, in tandem, the urgency of peace.

In this context, it makes perfect sense for the Secretary-General to stand up for a political process that recognises both the right to self-defence and war reparations, and the imperative of a peace agreement, guaranteed by the United Nations.

A new open letter should now insist on this line of action. A draft was prepared this week. I was one of those who found the text too vague, when the moment demands clarity and a firm assumption of responsibilities. So, for the time being, there will not be a new missive from us. The important thing is to show that the political pillar of the United Nations has the necessary authority to propose a way out of the crisis which will counter the escalation of military aggression and prevent the destruction of Ukraine.

The UN's political agenda could be built around four converging lines of intervention.

First, by seeking to establish temporary pauses in the fighting, in various localities deemed vulnerable, in order to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance. In this vision, the pauses would be monitored by a contingent of UN observers, with a mandate from the Security Council. The proposal to create a group of international monitors would be appreciated by many, although it is acknowledged that it would encounter immense obstacles to be approved.

Second, by maintaining a constant call, repeated until heard, for an end to hostilities and acceptance of a UN-led mediation process, which could include the preparation of a conference on a new framework for cooperation and security in Europe. 

Third, by continually recalling the Geneva Protocols on the limits of war. The major concern is the defence of civilian populations. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited; acts of military violence to create terror are a war crime; infrastructures essential to the survival of communities must be spared; certain types of munitions are absolutely prohibited, including cluster bombs, chemical and biological weapons. It is also time to underline the rules on the treatment of prisoners of war, now that the defenders of the last stronghold in Mariupol have surrendered to Russian troops. This surrender is a highly political and symbolic event, which calls for a special reference, in defence of the rights of these prisoners. And of all the others, of course. 

Still under this heading, it seems essential to me to reiterate that the UN is already engaged in documenting possible war crimes and will seek, as far as possible, to increase its efforts in this regard.

Fourth, bearing in mind the divisions within the Security Council, and considering this war to be the greatest threat in 77 years, the Secretary-General could try to set up a Contact Group on the conflict. Such a group would bring together several influential countries that would be in constant liaison with Guterres in the search for solutions. It is a way to multiply the Secretary-General's capacity for intervention and to create a circle of support to protect him from political attacks. It would also show that the crisis has an international and not just a European scope.

None of this would be easy. But the fact remains that the job of UN secretary-general is anything but an easy one.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 20 May 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

China, European Union, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin

Where is China's leadership?

Victor Angelo

It took 12 days of aggression against Ukraine for Xi Jinping to come down to earth and discuss his reading of the crisis with Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz. The day before, his foreign minister, Wang Yi, had organised a long press conference focused on the same subject.

Analysing these two speeches, I get the impression that Beijing wants to please Greeks and Trojans, i.e., the Europeans of the EU and the regime of Vladimir Putin, and to escalate the rhetoric against the US. Xi sought to encourage dialogue between the Europeans and the Kremlin, as well as to create a fault line between the European and American positions. This is how the Chinese initiative can be summed up.

Above all, Xi's aim is to project an image of composure and serenity, in defence of the multilateral system and of peace. He wants to appear as the great apologist for international principles, while the Americans should be seen as the instigators of conflicts, including the one now being suffered in Ukraine. China would be mainly concerned with the promotion of international cooperation - the word cooperation was mentioned more than 80 times in Wang's speech - development and the prevention of large-scale humanitarian crises.

All this is an exercise in style in the realms of propaganda and ambiguity. China needs to maintain a very close relationship with Russia. They are two big neighbours, with various complementarities, beyond the immense geographical continuity. Beijing imports raw materials extracted in Russia – oil represents about 60% of total imports coming from Russia – and provides an outlet for its neighbour's economy. Most important of all, it sees the US as a common enemy. Geography brings the two countries together and geopolitics unites them. It is, however, a fragile union: it is fundamentally based on the wills of Xi and Putin. It has no solid popular expression, because each people have their own cultural framework, without shared roots or references.

And China knows how to calculate too: in one year, trade with the EU exceeds USD 800 billion, while with Russia it is much lower, at USD 105 billion. This figure roughly equals the annual trade between China and the Netherlands. Politically and economically, Xi Jinping depends on an open and friendly European market. For the Chinese leader, international trade is essential to maintain the pace of growth in living standards for his citizens. This has to do with his continuity in power. It is the key argument to justify his legitimacy and absolute authority.  

The fact is that the Chinese leadership does not support the military assault that Putin has ordered against Ukraine. For what I write above, and for three other reasons. First, because it flouts two of the fundamental principles of Chinese foreign policy, that of the inviolability of national borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. Secondly, it destabilises European economies and puts them at risk of a deep crisis. Third, it reinforces the role of the USA in NATO and its influence in Europe.

However, Xi Jinping does not think it prudent to criticise, or even talk to Putin now. He prefers to go through Macron and Scholz and advise them on a dialogue with the Kremlin, pretending not to see that this path is currently blocked. Putin does not listen to the European leaders.

Faced with the Ukrainian resistance against the invaders, Putin is determined to repeat what other dictators have done throughout history: expand the use of armed force, including the bombing of civilians - a war crime - and the siege of cities, in the old medieval style. Xi Jinping knows the costs of this kind of criminal folly. It is what prompted him to contact Europe's leaders. He should show that his words about the value of multilateralism and diplomatic negotiations make sense and move with clarity in the UN Security Council and with his partner Putin. Only then can he be taken seriously. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 11 March 2022)