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.

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.

China comes to Poland

 A drone that appears to be a Chinese-designed Gerbera - was found in Mniszkow, around 200 miles from the border between Poland and Ukraine. China's involvement side-by-side with Russia in the aggression against Ukraine seems obvious. Even if we consider that this drone looks very much as a decoy.

Ukraine: what's next, after 100 days of agression?

Ukraine: looking beyond 100 days of aggression

Victor Angelo

President Zelensky has stressed that the war will only end with recourse to diplomacy. He is right. He needs to build a peace agreement with the aggressor. This will not be easy. The agreement cannot reward what has been a clear violation of international law, a succession of war crimes, destruction, and acts of pillage. This is the great dilemma, which makes any mediation process a puzzle. In this scenario, an agreement will only be possible between a position of strength and one of weakness. This is a dramatic conclusion. It leads to the search for the crushing or humiliation of the adversary. 

At the outset, one would say that prolonging hostilities is to the advantage of the stronger side. The courage and determination of the Ukrainians would not be enough to respond effectively to a prolonged offensive conducted with unbridled brutality.

It is in this context that external aid is essential. Neither the US nor the EU countries can let Vladimir Putin's Russia defeat Ukraine. If that were to happen, peace, security and democracy in Europe would be seriously undermined. Now it would be Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Poland, Lithuania, or any other country in our geopolitical space. Or we would simply continue to live side by side with a neighbour always ready to do us harm.

Thus, each bloc must assist Ukraine with the means available. On the American side, it has now been decided to provide an arsenal of advanced technology and long-range weapons. The admonitions coming from Moscow following this decision by Joe Biden found an answer in the text that the President signed this Tuesday in the New York Times: it is not about seeking a war between NATO and Russia. The aim is to enable the Ukrainians to have the means to exercise their right to self-defence.

On the European side, the package of sanctions adopted this week at the European Council should be seen in a positive light. It goes as far as the consensus allows. What is essential is that it is finalised without further delay - Hungary continues to put up obstacles - and applied at an accelerated pace.

Even more important is the agreement between the EU and the UK that makes it impossible for ships carrying Russian oil products to insure their cargoes in London and the rest of Europe. Without such insurance contracts, the big shipping lines are no longer able to operate in the service of Russian exports. Experience with Iran shows that such a measure sharply reduces oil exports. This is certainly one of the sanctions so far with the greatest impact.

As I have said several times, sanctions have fundamentally three objectives. To express political condemnation. To reduce the financial capacity that sustains the war machine. And to disconnect the Russian Federation from more developed economies, to emphasise that there is a connection between respect for international law and participation in global markets.

Sanctions should be part of a future negotiation of normalising relations. But they can only be lifted when the Kremlin is no longer seen by Europe and its allies as an unpredictable and threatening regime.

In addition to arms and sanctions, it will be necessary to continue financial support to Ukraine. This support is a potentially delicate matter at a time of relatively anaemic economic growth in Europe and when the rising cost of living is becoming a major concern. But it is the price we have to pay to maintain our stability and security. It is an effort that will last for some time. Later, when entering the negotiation phase, the mediators will have to include on the agenda the issue of war reparations and the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction.  

On this 100th day of the aggression, we are facing a very complex situation. Future scenarios, especially for the next three weeks, should include several concerns. But for now, the priority challenges are four: immediately strengthening Ukraine's defence capacity; deepening isolation and weakening Russia's public finances; maintaining unity amongst us; and continuing to insist on the diplomacy of peace.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated  3 June 2022)

Mr Biden is in Europe

Joe Biden’s urgent travel to Europe

Victor Ângelo

 

The American President is in Europe on an exceptional and urgent basis, which shows the gravity of the current crisis caused by the backward, criminal and imperialistic politics of Vladimir Putin. Regardless of the results of the meetings in which Joe Biden took part, at NATO, at the G7 and at the European Council, I see three central objectives in his trip, which seek to respond to the continuous worsening of the situation in Europe.

First, to send a crystal-clear message about the US commitment to the defence of its European allies. This warning is particularly relevant at a time when hostile rhetoric against Poland is beginning to be heard in Moscow. Dmitry Medvedev this week published a frontal attack against the political leadership of that country - and these things do not happen by chance. They are usually part of a plan of confrontation, which at an early stage seeks to create unrest within the targeted population, undermine the authority of its political class, and simultaneously format Russian public opinion itself. Thus, Biden's trip to Warsaw, after Brussels, is part of the American message. To think that Putin excludes the possibility of entering into an armed conflict against an EU or even NATO country would be a mixture of naivety and thoughtlessness. We are, unfortunately, in a spiral where anything can happen. The American umbrella needs to be recalled in an obvious way. Biden's visit serves that purpose.

A second purpose is surely related to deepening sanctions against Russia, while at the same time trying to avoid dissension among European leaders. The subject, namely regarding gas and oil, is very sensitive. Several European countries have expressed strong reservations, not to say opposition, to a possible suspension of energy imports. A few days ago, the German Chancellor again stated that such a measure would cause a deep recession throughout Europe. But now, with Putin deciding that these imports will have to be paid for in roubles, at whatever exchange rate he wants to set, the embargo becomes a pressing issue. There can only be one acceleration in that direction.

Thirty days after the start of military aggression and escalating acts of war, the approval of a new far-reaching sanctions package cannot be brushed aside. Europeans must accept that the risk coming from the Kremlin is very high and does not only concern Ukraine. It is essential to weaken as much as possible the economy that feeds the Russian war machine. This will naturally entail costs for us. But the biggest cost, growing and permanent, is keeping Putin in power. At the point where things have reached, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful future in Europe with the current Russian regime. Our peaceful coexistence depends on the democratization of Russia, something that is up to its citizens to resolve.

A third objective relates to the need to speed up material aid to the Ukrainian defence effort. The US has just approved $1 billion in defensive equipment and weaponry. This assistance needs facilitation from the Europeans so that it can reach its destination as quickly as possible. Moreover, it must be accompanied by additional means from European countries. On the eve of the Brussels meetings, the EU announced an additional military contribution of 500 billion euros. The provision of all this is extremely urgent. Resistance to invaders, which is an act of legitimate defence, is done with courage and sophisticated means. 

It pains me to have to write a text like this. But let's be clear: there is, I repeat, a risk of armed confrontation in our part of Europe. To avoid it, we must provide unreserved support for Ukraine, be strategic, and firm in our economic, financial, and political responses against Putin, and be ready to accept sacrifices. In short, the moment demands vision, realism, determination, subtlety, truth, and the availability of means.   

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 25 March 2022)

 

 

The Demcracy Summit and its question marks

We are all for democracy

Victor Angelo

 

President Biden is organising a virtual summit on 9th and 10th for democracy. It will be the first of two. The aim of the summit is to get each leader to announce measures to strengthen democracy in their respective countries. The second, in a year's time, will take stock of the promises made next week. The US will also make commitments. We will see which ones, because in recent years the American democracy has shown worrying weaknesses. The US is one of the countries in democratic decline according to this year's report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), an authoritative organisation based in Stockholm.

At first, I thought the initiative was a mistake, a further attempt to create divisions within the community of nations and a further stab at the multilateral system. But given that the international democratic climate has taken serious steps backwards recently, in the end I decided to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. And I, like many others, await the results. Anything that can contribute to the strengthening of fundamental rights and better governance will be welcome. As will a discussion on the impact of the digital revolution on political choices and the liberation of citizens' voices.

Such a meeting is, however, a big deal. The list of those excluded will give as much to talk about as the topics under debate. The UN has 193 member states. Biden invited about 110. In the EU, Viktor Orbán was left out, thus giving a strong argument to those who see the Hungarian leader for what he really is: an autocrat. But Poland, which is certainly not a better example of the rule of law, is on the list. The reason seems clear: Warsaw is a faithful, and increasingly strong, military ally of American policy in Eastern Europe. Still regarding NATO, Recep Tayyib Erdogan does not appear on the list either. Most probably because the Americans do not appreciate his political-military closeness to Vladimir Putin. Erdoğan has become a stone in NATO's boot and that makes many people uncomfortable. In the case of the CPLP, the Portuguese-speaking community of States, the exclusion of the two Guineas - Bissau and Equatorial Guinea - is understandable. But one wonders why the White House did not invite Mozambique.

Neither China nor Russia will take part in the meeting. Their respective ambassadors in Washington co-signed an article condemning the summit. Then came other criticisms, in Beijing and Moscow. China, which is furious that Taiwan was invited, asserts that it is a socialist democracy, widely supported by the population - today no one talks about the dictatorship of the proletariat anymore. Russia goes further and claims a parliamentary system that is over 100 years old, which includes the entire era of Stalin and company. Both regimes swear blindly that they are democratic, each in its own way. And that the summit is therefore arrogant, divisive, and in essence a provocation against China and Russia.

Democracy is a very elastic concept. No dictator will ever acknowledge that his regime is undemocratic. On the contrary, they all maintain that they were democratically elected. So say Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko, Nicolás Maduro, Bashar al-Assad and many others. Even Robert Mugabe, in his time, said that the elections, which he stole by stealth, were perfectly legitimate and free. So did others, whom I have come to know during my professional life and after having witnessed various electoral shenanigans. The only one who will have no such worries will be Kim Jong-un, the comic-tragic despot of North Korea.

The issues under discussion - how to curb authoritarianism; the fight against corruption; and the defence of human rights - are fundamental pillars of democracy, let there be no doubt. Where there will certainly be room for doubt is when we learn of the commitments that certain countries will proclaim, thinking that all this is just talk. Even so, it may be worth going ahead with the summit, because progress is also made with idealistic initiatives.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 3 December 2021)

 

 

The EU and its neighbours, starting with Belarus

A Europe beyond barbed wire

Victor Angelo

 

The confrontation taking place on the border between Belarus and Poland is worrying, but it cannot be analysed in black and white. It is a complex crisis that raises a whole series of questions. We are facing humanitarian, migratory, security, geopolitical and ethical problems, in other words, a constellation of challenges that need to be debated calmly, frankly, and thoroughly.

In the background, we have two major problems. The first is about democracy. The second focuses on extreme poverty in a world that is profoundly unequal, and that conflicts, pandemics and climate change are making even more uneven and fractured.

But first, you have to think about the people who are now trapped in the no-man's-land between the Polish barbed wire and the truncheons of the Belarusian special units. It is not known how many thousands there are - estimates are not reliable. It is known, however, that they include fragile people, many of them children, who are hungry and cold and suffer constant humiliation and violence. They are also permanent targets for false news that Belarusian agents constantly circulate in order to keep the migrants' illusions alive.

Alexander Lukashenko, the master of Belarus, is clearly taking advantage of the misery of certain peoples. But our side cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of those who have allowed themselves to be manipulated, people who live in such complicated contexts that any promise, however unrealistic it may be, always brings a thread of hope. And that throws masses of people into the minefields of illegal migration.

The border with Belarus separates the European area from an autocratic regime, in which anything that can keep the dictator in power is done. Lukashenko is our most immediate concern today, but he is not the only case in the neighbourhood. If we look around and focus on who represents the closest potential or real threat, we have a bouquet that also includes the leaders of Russia and Turkey. I do not want to add some Moroccan politicians to this list, but I would recommend not losing sight of this North African neighbour of ours, who has already shown that he knows how to use mass migration as a political weapon.

It is true that there are also those within the EU who are destabilising European integration. But that is a matter for another reflection.

Let us now talk about democracy. The EU needs to formulate a doctrine that defines how it should relate to non-democratic neighbours, especially when situations of open hostility arise, as is now the case. In the current framework, one gets the feeling that democracies tend to lose out to outlaw states. It is therefore necessary to clearly establish what the appropriate response should be to aggressions of a hybrid nature, carried out at the tangent of the red line of armed conflicts between States, without, however, crossing it. A first step should be a firm and unequivocal response. This includes the adoption of sanctions in a swifter, multi-faceted and more character-focused manner. Another means will be to make greater use of the multilateral system. This will allow actions like the one Lukashenko ordered at the expense of the despair of the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrians and other peoples of the Middle East to be included on the international agenda,

As for the disparities that exist between a rich Europe and a whole series of poor countries, the pull effect is inevitable. Mass migration from South to North will be one of the most striking phenomena of this and the following decades. The EU cannot pretend it does not see the trend. It is unacceptable to leave a matter of such importance to the discretion of individual member states. The issue must be dealt with jointly. And the subject must become one of the main lines of debate at the Conference on the Future of Europe. It is also time to tell the citizens that this conference is taking place and get them involved.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 19 November 2021)

Poland must follow the EU values

A danger disguised as Law and Justice

Victor Ângelo

 

I have known Marzena for more than 15 years. It was shortly after she arrived in Brussels and started a new life, serving in the homes of the Belgian middle class. She came from deep Poland, a stone's throw from Belarus - in fact, she has relatives living in a couple of villages on the other side of the barbed wire, Poles like herself, but caught up in the post-war border-line scramble by Stalin's people. Over time, she saw many thousands of other compatriots arrive in Belgium, who today work in construction, domestic service, factories or in the many Polish stores that have opened everywhere. The money that these immigrants regularly transfer to their homeland has been one of the factors in Poland's economic modernization. The other is linked to the different advantages that came with the country's entry into the European Union in 2004.

Marzena is a modest but thoughtful person. She has learned a lot over the years. She can see the economic progress, how her country has changed since accession. But she also recognizes that today's Poland is on the wrong track when it comes to the opening of mentalities and political culture. A part of the ruling class exploits the nationalism that has kept the country alive throughout history, amid Germanic, Russian and Scandinavian pressures, and deepens it with the help of the Catholic church, which continues to weigh heavily in maintaining an extreme conservatism. There is a holy alliance, it must be said, between the government led by the Law and Justice party (PiS) and the most backward sectors of the ecclesiastical structure.

The government has been in conflict with the European Union for several years, mainly for reasons having to do with the independence of the justice system, which has been strongly limited by the political power. This conflict was recently aggravated by a ruling of the Constitutional Court, which does not recognize the primacy of European law. This Tuesday, the European Parliament (EP) heard Ursula von der Leyen and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki on the dispute. It was a clash of positions, with it being clear that the EP supports the European Commission (EC) and expects it to take measures that will lead Warsaw to change its policy. For now, the Polish Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) - about 24 billion euros in non-repayable funds plus 34 billion in loans - is waiting for better days before being accepted. There is also the possibility that the Commission will activate the mechanism that makes the approval of European funds conditional on respect for EU values. This mechanism is the most expeditious, since it can be approved by a qualified majority, without requiring the unanimity of member states. Poland expects to receive around 121 billion euros in cohesion funds in the coming years, until 2027. In financial terms, what is at stake is immense. Warsaw, however, is still betting on a confrontation with the EC.

All this puts the future of the common project at risk. Poles want to remain in the EU - 90% of citizens are in favour, including 87% of PiS supporters. The government itself says and repeats that there is no question of preparing an exit, a Polexit. They say it is just an assertion that Europe is based on a collection of nations and not on ever deeper integration. This is a fallacious argument, for what is at issue is respect for the basic values that unite the European peoples, and which have been enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the EU Treaty. To allow a Member State to violate these values and remain in the Union is to offer the adversary the possibility of destroying us by continuing to sit at our table.

The Commission must win this battle. The European executive and the other institutions cannot emerge weakened from such a debate. Now is the time to hear the voices of the leaders supporting Ursula von der Leyen without ambiguity or further delay.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 22  October 2021)

 

Three men and the future of the European Union

The European Union on the road to collapse

Victor Ângelo

 

Hungary's Viktor Orbán, Poland's Jarosław Kaczyński and Turkey's Recep Erdoğan were once again recalled this week as three of the major threats to the continuity of the EU. The report now published by the European Commission about the rule of law in member countries highlights the first two. The crisis in Libya brings the third back into the picture. All of them are part of the daily concerns of those who want to build a cohesive Europe based on the values of democracy, tolerance, and cooperation.

The report confirms what was already known about the Hungarian Prime Minister. Orbán manipulates public opinion in his country, abuses power to reduce his opponents' scope for action as much as possible, and attacks the freedom of the press, the activities of civil society and academic autonomy. The suspicions of corruption in the awarding of public contracts to companies linked to his and the ruling party are based on very strong evidence. To further spice up an undemocratic and very opaque mess, accusations have now been made public of the secret services' use of the Pegasus computer application to spy on journalists and others who oppose their misrule. It's all that and not just the new law on homosexuality. But the man is cunning. He is reducing the conflict with Brussels to a dimension that is not even at stake - the protection of children and adolescents. And then he announces that there will be a national referendum on that issue, certainly skewed in his own way.

The fight against corruption and for justice to work well, especially its independence, are two fundamental aspects of the European project. It was the issue of justice that caused Poland to appear in large letters in the above-mentioned report. The party now in government, improperly called Law and Justice (PiS), led by the ultra-conservative Kaczyński, has done everything it can to subjugate the judiciary to political power and to ignore Brussels whenever it smells criticism. Thus, the chief justice, appointed by the hand of the PiS, does not want to recognise the primacy and authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Commission has given him until mid-August to apply two decisions of the European court, which reveals the existence of an open conflict between Brussels and Warsaw.

The policies pursued by the governments of these two countries affect the integrity of the Union and open the door for others to adopt similar behaviour. The fact that the presidency in this second semester is held by the Slovenian prime minister - a confused politician who sometimes looks at Orbán with some admiration - does not help matters.

Outside the EU's borders, Erdoğan remains a nightmare. To the conflicts related to Greece and Cyprus, add the growing Turkish presence in Libya. This country has enormous strategic importance as a departure point for illegal immigrants heading for Europe. Erdoğan already commands the gateways in the Eastern Mediterranean. His influence in Libya will allow him to control the flows on the central route. As a reaction, the EU is preparing the deployment of a military mission to Libya. The main motivation is to compete with Turkey on the ground. This is a mistake. Libya is an extremely complicated chess, where several countries are playing, including Russia. There is no clear political process, apart from a vague promise of elections at the end of the year. A military mission like the one being planned has a high probability of failure and endless bogging down in the dry quicksand of a fragmented country. The EU cannot lightly approve such an intervention. Meanwhile, Turkish freighters continue to pass in front of the beards of the European naval and air operation IRINI, which is supposed to serve to control the arms embargo on Libyan belligerents.

Orbán and the others are a real danger. But the title of this chronicle is obviously provocative. Collapse is not on the horizon. However, it serves to underline that in these matters of values and external relations, the EU must take unequivocal positions of principle. It is a matter of getting respect. Respect is an essential condition to build a successful future.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

Reflecting about democracy

 Democracy cannot be make-believe

Victor Ângelo

 

In the most developed societies, we are witnessing an acceleration in the digitalisation of all dimensions of citizens' lives. The pandemic has contributed enormously to this digital revolution. But more is coming.  The ability to process millions of pieces of information through new methods of artificial intelligence and advances in automation will allow the control - and, in many cases, manipulation - of people in a way never seen before.

The new digital age brings numerous challenges, and even threats, for democracy. Think, for example, of the role of robots in the multiplication of propaganda, fake news, and the creation of echo chambers, which give the impression of massive political support for some, and build around them all sorts of illusions, alongside the harassment of others, the opponents, with thousands of hostile messages from fake profiles. But the most immediate aspect concerns participation in the electoral act. If a citizen can pay his taxes or renew his identity card while sitting at the kitchen table, why is he not allowed to vote by computer link-up, also from home? Going to a polling station, going through crowds of people, queuing up and wasting time seem like procedures from another time, even if people like Donald Trump try to discredit electronic voting.

Already this week, the French have thrown another challenge into the debate. The abstention rate in the regional elections reached a record high. Two-thirds did not vote. Worse still, around 9 out of 10 of 18–24-year-olds were not ready for the hassle. They just ignored the election calls. Analysts were baffled. In discoursing on the reasons for such indifference, they fell into the same simplism that Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and other political personalities had already shown on election night - it would be the fault of the citizens, who found the inconvenience not worth it. And they launched cries to the heavens to lament that such a trend could lead to the death of democracy.

All that is television talk. People - especially young people - do not vote because most of the political class doesn't mean anything to them, doesn't inspire them, has no new ideas, is just more of the same, with too much hubris and too few ethics. This is what is happening in France and other European countries. The main threat to democracy does not come from apathy among citizens. That is the consequence. The cause lies upstream, in the political parties - there are always exceptions - which are generally nothing more than a club of opportunists or fanatics, enlightened by short-sightedness.

The question of democracy is also on the agenda of the European Council meeting that has been held since yesterday, marking the end of the Portuguese presidency. The big question, which has been a long time coming and so far, unanswered, is what to do about the authoritarian governance currently practised in Hungary and Poland. The leaders in these two countries have long systematically violated Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which defines the fundamental values on which the EU is based - freedom, democracy, separation of powers and human rights. The lack of an adequate response to these violations is another fuel to the fire that is consuming away the citizens' confidence in democracy and politicians.

Less talked about, but equally important for the vitality of democracy, is having a capable system of administration of justice that is independent of politicians. Citizens need to have confidence in the speedy and efficient functioning of the courts, as a means of defending their rights and correcting injustices. In the age of "digital totalitarianism" this is even more essential. In member states where justice is slow, ill-equipped, and inefficient, we have a problem almost as serious as the authoritarianism that exists elsewhere. Those states have a lame democracy. They should also be the subject of criticism in the European Council. Without effective justice, democracy is an illusion. And the citizens, as the French have now shown, are no longer so easily deceived.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

The future of politics must be based on values

They do not fit into our future

Victor Angelo

 

I recognise the concerns that many thinkers express about what the world will be like in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. A large proportion say that this crisis pulverizes our societies and disrupts democracy and the alliances that bind us to other peoples, promotes a tendency towards isolation, nationalistic selfishness and the loss of the points of reference that gave meaning to international relations. Thus, the world would emerge fragmented from the crisis, with each country more self-centred, more autocratic, and with the institutions of the multilateral system rather weakened.

I propose a different reading of the route we are now taking. I believe that the crisis gives us the opportunity to strengthen the humanist dimension that has been lacking, both in domestic politics and on the international stage. We will certainly be poorer economically, but we can become much richer politically. It is a question of good leadership and strong citizenship movements. The pandemic has reminded us that people are the essential end of politics. Not people in a general and abstract sense, but each of us, simultaneously in our individuality and as members of the social space to which we belong. Politics must place a stronger emphasis on protecting and respecting our fundamental rights, starting with the right to dignity, health, security and diversity, as well as creating the conditions for everyone to develop their potential as best they know how. 

I believe that the pandemic drama has prepared a good part of the citizens for a new kind of awareness as regards their relationship with others and nature. I think it has made us more measured in our ambitions. We are faced with the possibility of renewing political practice. That is the main conclusion I draw from the present situation. It is also the line that guides my vision of the future. Politics tomorrow must mean a continuous struggle for human rights, for democratisation, for smoothness in public management and for more solidarity. We must build on the maturity we have acquired during this period of shock. If this happens, the credibility of politics will be enhanced, multilateral cooperation will be cemented and we will be in a better position to tackle what I consider to be the three biggest global challenges of the decade: the fight against poverty, the defence of freedom and the regeneration of the environment, starting with the mitigation of climate change.

Indeed, none of this should be new to us Europeans. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union clearly defines - and happily worded, which is not always the case when it comes to legal commitments between states - the values that constitute the fundamental foundations of our common project, including the centrality of the human dimension of politics. But politicians, who are generally very skilful in the games of opportunism and in the ambiguity of consensus designed to please Greeks and Trojans, do not always support themselves as they should in that article of the Treaty.

In these circumstances, it is essential that the European Commission's budget for the period 2021-2027 and the exceptional plan for economic recovery, which must respond to the challenges created by the pandemic, recognise the essential need for each Member State to respect the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Article 2. Budgets and democracy are the two sides of the same Europe. Here there can be no tricks or juggling of words and misunderstandings. The Hungarian vetoes of Viktor Orbán and the Polish vetoes of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, now also supported by Janez Janša, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, are unacceptable. Let us speak clearly. Orbán is a despot at the head of a clique that many accuse of kleptocracy. Kaczynski is a backward man who exploits feelings from other times. Janša is a small brain man: he was the only European leader to congratulate Donald Trump on his electoral "victory". They all manipulate public opinion in their countries and will not change as long as they retain control of power. We cannot let these gentlemen think that the EU is just a source of money, unrelated to a policy of democratic values and rights. Any compromise on this issue would mean that we would not have learned anything from the cultural revolution that the pandemic crisis is offering us. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)