No to realpolitik, yes to principles and the International Law

 

Geopolitical Realism: When Might Prevails Over International Law

By Victor Ângelo

I regret having to repeat myself, but criticising the theory of geopolitical realism (realpolitik) does not constitute an exercise in naive idealism. On the contrary, it is a matter of recalling three fundamental dimensions of the relations between States. First, that peace must be the foundational principle of the international order. Second, that the United Nations Charter — even if it lacks updating regarding representation and the functioning of the Security Council — must be scrupulously respected. Third, that the power of military force cannot, and must not, prevail over the force of International Law. The world is not a boxing ring, nor a gladiatorial arena, where the strongest invariably wins.

The central error of so-called "political realism" lies in reducing the State to the role of the sole actor, ignoring democratic practices. Institutions, citizens' associations, economic agents, the media, and intellectuals are devalued or instrumentalised as mere pawns of power. Oppositions are diminished in their rights, despite being normal alternatives in a democracy. In reality, this alleged realism, which is nothing more than a form of political reductionism, opens the doors to absolute and arbitrary power, even in apparently consolidated democracies.

When leaders view the world solely through the lever of force and military aggression, they live anchored in other times; their mental roots are buried in the past. They place themselves outside the law and call it pragmatism. They ignore — or pretend to ignore — that there is a "before" and an "after" 1945, and that the world has changed radically since the end of the Cold War. When they speak of "negotiations", they are actually referring to the submission of the weak to the will of the strong. In the 19th century, such a practice was termed an "ultimatum". Today, it is presented under the cloak of a dense "geopolitical fog". This lack of visibility allows for a game played without clear rules. Diplomacy is captured to buy time, sow confusion — both among adversaries and domestic public opinion — and prepare, in the shadows, the logistics of war. Can we trust such leaders, today or tomorrow?

The war against Iran reminds us that it is imperative and urgent to insist on international ethics and human rights. When brute force becomes the primary criterion, no one is truly safe — not even the most powerful. If human rights are despised, fear becomes the only acceptable truth and the dominant social rule. George Orwell's "Newspeak" is, disturbingly, beginning to be imposed as a linguistic norm when, in certain European capitals, people speak of unusual characters now appearing at the front of the stage.

What is happening today in the Middle East underscores a constant reality: during and at the end of bad decisions and despotism, there is always a vast number of human beings paying the bill. This reality leads me to contend that the only sovereignty that truly counts is that which is based on the protection of life and human dignity. Everything else belongs to the tragic comedy of power, to absurd megalomaniacal ambitions, and to indifference towards people and the world itself. Are we witnessing the definitive decline of humanist concerns?

It is urgent to bring this theme to the table of the Security Council. Portuguese diplomacy, committed to obtaining a seat on the Council for the 2027-2028 biennium, must adopt this vision as its own banner: the banner of peace, dialogue, and tolerance, with humanity above all else. By doing so, Portugal will align itself with the majority of Member States and with the very essence of the UN. We will not be mere passive spectators of the current nihilism and unilateralism, but an active voice capable of proclaiming that great challenges demand collective and multilateral responses.

Our participation in NATO has an objective of peace and does not prevent the building of bridges with regional organisations in Latin America, Africa, or Asia. At a time when some powers are distancing themselves from the UN, or seeking to subordinate and capture it, Portuguese diplomacy can serve as another pillar — in coordination with other States — in building consensus, defending International Law, and supporting institutions of common interest. For example, the international courts based in The Hague and the bodies of the United Nations system, which are vital for billions of people and for the planet.

In June, the General Assembly will vote on the composition of the Council for the next two years. The Portuguese campaign takes place in a demanding and quite delicate context. Our greatest asset must be the intransigent promotion of peace through the reinforcement of the political role of the UN. This is the message that the world wants — and most needs — to hear with clarity.

---

Contextual Post-Script (March 6, 2026)

As I review this translation, the events of this week add a sharp layer of irony to the text's call for "institutional ethics" and its critique of "transactional realism":

• The Merz-Trump Dialogue: Just three days ago, on March 3rd, Chancellor Friedrich Merz met with President Trump at the White House. While Trump pushed his "energy dominance" agenda, Merz was forced to navigate the exact "geopolitical fog" you describe. He specifically cited the war in Iran as a disaster for energy prices, urging a swift conclusion to protect German industry.

• The Rosneft "Carve-out": In a classic example of the "transactionalism" you critique, the US Treasury just yesterday (March 5th) lifted sanctions on Rosneft Deutschland. This was the result of intense lobbying by Merz to ensure Germany could continue refining oil through its state-controlled (but Russian-owned) assets. It confirms your fear: the "ideals" of sanctions are being traded for the "pragmatism" of industrial survival.

• The "Empty Shell" Reality: While the UN General Assembly watches from the sidelines, the "Coalition of the Willing" (led by Merz, Macron, and Starmer) met virtually this week to discuss troop deployments to Ukraine if Trump's peace deal fails. The "rescue mission" you envisioned is being led by heads of state, while the UN remains the "passive spectator" you warned against.

Russia and the European Union: dialogue is one of three key dimensions

Russia Must Listen to the European Union
Victor Ângelo

Today, 21 November, was meant to be the day when American sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, two giant Russian conglomerates in the oil and gas sectors, would come into effect. This decision by President Donald Trump, taken a month ago, was recently amended with respect to Lukoil. The company now has until 13 December to sell its foreign assets and until April next year to cease all activities in Bulgaria. Several firms are interested in purchasing the assets in question, but transactions can only be finalised once approved by the Trump administration.

Lukoil, a privately owned company listed on stock exchanges, is a global colossus. Most of its operations take place outside Russia. The profits and dividends it generates weigh heavily on the Russian economy. The decision taken by Washington puts Lukoil’s survival in jeopardy.

For its part, Rosneft, a company controlled by the Kremlin, is the largest contributor to the budget of the Russian Federation. Should the sanctions become effective, they will have a significant impact on the country’s public finances.

The question that remains unanswered, for now, is clear: will the loss of revenue and the resulting budgetary imbalances be enough to convince the Kremlin that there is an urgent need for peace negotiations? That is Trump’s intention. My experience tells me that such an outcome is unlikely. Sanctions, by themselves, tend to have a slow impact on the policies they aim to change.

Nevertheless, I support the application of sanctions against regimes that act outside international law. In this particular case, it is about significantly reducing the financial base and other means that enable Russia to continue its unacceptable aggression against Ukraine. It is also about sending a strong political message of absolute condemnation.

There are no conditions for the United Nations Security Council to approve any package of sanctions targeting Russia. That would, in principle, be the appropriate process. Since it is not possible, each State must decide on the restrictions and pressure it is prepared to exert. However, it must respect humanitarian principles – sanctions must not endanger the lives of citizens in the targeted country – and the sovereignty of third States. They should also aim to contribute to resolving the crisis or conflict, and in this case, to stopping the unjustifiable war for which Russia is responsible.

In my view, neither a ceasefire nor peace are part of Vladimir Putin’s immediate plans. On the contrary, it seems we will continue to witness the intensification of destruction and death in Ukraine, sanctioned by Russia. The Kremlin is betting on war and is convinced it will eventually subjugate Ukraine. The information coming from Moscow indicates that Putin listens less and less to diplomats, including Sergey Lavrov. His main advisers come from the political police apparatus and the economic sphere. Consider who will represent him at the G20 summit this weekend in South Africa: not the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, but the Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office, Maxim Oreshkin. He is an apparatchik with a background entirely linked to the management of the national economy. Concern for economic stability is a priority for Putin. This confirms the importance of sanctions in the economic and financial sectors.

Putin dreams of a victory that will see his name included in the history books of “great and holy” Russia, as he likes to say. His statements, endlessly repeated by the group that controls power and the media in Moscow, reveal a leader who only accepts negotiations with the great powers of the world – Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. The others are seen as minor players, of no value in the international geopolitical chess game. Putin does not wish to waste time in dialogue with European leaders.

The EU must respond on three fronts: maintain aid to Ukraine, rigorously apply the sanctions already approved, and show readiness to begin a serious process of talks with Russian leaders.

With regard to negotiations, my suggestion is simple: António Costa, as President of the European Council, must receive a mandate from the Member States granting the necessary authority to make contact with Putin. His office would then seek to establish lines of communication with the Kremlin, in order to convince the Russians that a cycle of talks between Putin and Costa could be beneficial for both parties and vital for the internal interests of the Russian Federation, as well as for peace in Europe.

There is urgency in moving forward on this front, before the US and Russia reach an agreement over the heads and interests of Europeans. Some will say this scenario is increasingly plausible.

All this must be done without illusions and with great perseverance on the European side. The messages coming from the Kremlin show that Putin sees any possible negotiation as an exercise in asserting his views and ambitions. For him, flexibility, concessions, the search for balance – all these are seen as weakness and admission of mistakes, whether his own or others’. This attitude must not discourage the European side. The EU must put on its boots and enter the geopolitical game, in the only arena that is truly its own, the championship of the great powers. Here lies both an opportunity and a historic obligation.