Security in Munich 2026: a complex debate

The Munich Security Conference is set to take place from the 13th to the 15th of February. It remains a watershed moment in global political discourse; one need only recall the fractious intervention of the American Vice President, JD Vance, at last year’s gathering to grasp the weight of the meeting.

We find ourselves now in an even more precarious phase. As the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, remarked recently in Davos, we are in a state of "permanent rupture"—an era of "brute reality" where Great Powers wield trade and force as instruments of coercion. He is, in large measure, correct. Indeed, his observation is one I have touched upon in recent writings.

I must reiterate, however, that we cannot permit ourselves to be overcome by pessimism, nor by the irrationality and violence of autocrats. To fold one's arms is no solution. The world is not fated to be ruled by narcissists, dictators, or the deranged. Mahatma Gandhi once reminded us that there have always been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall—always.

The speeches to be delivered in Munich are currently being drafted. It seems to me, therefore, an opportune moment to share a series of thoughts on themes I consider paramount.

I shall begin by quoting Kofi Annan, with whom I worked for several years: "Our mission is to place the human being at the centre of everything we do. No wall is high enough to keep out global problems, and no country is strong enough to solve them alone." Long before him, Martin Luther King Jr. observed that we are "caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" that ensnares us all.

The messages of both men are plain to understand: either we commit to solidarity between peoples, or our societies and the planet, as we know them, can only draw closer to the abyss.

I observe with concern the apologia for "useful subordination," which some term political realism. This so-called realism, to which the Great Powers seek to subjugate us—and which certain theorists and leaders champion—must be regarded as a perilous anachronism. It is a sort of "survival guide" that, under the guise of accepting force as the defining factor in international relations, proposes the abandonment of universal principles in exchange for an illusory stability. This political vision being sold to us stems from the exhausted and dangerous premise of accepting "spheres of influence." In other words, they draw inspiration from the suzerainties and vassalages of yore, claiming them to be the best means of ensuring peace. There must be those in Munich prepared to dismantle this fallacy.

The true strength of a State does not reside solely in its military arsenal. It rests equally upon its legitimacy and the courage of its people. To invest in an atmosphere of fear is the preferred pursuit of dictators and populists. When we allow them to wield that weapon, we march toward perdition. This is happening even amongst us. A climate of dread is developing in Europe. The paralysis engendered by fear is the true weakness of a nation. It is vital that it be said in Munich: we are ready to overcome this terror, from wherever it may come. Audacity, anchored in values, is the answer.

Ukraine serves as a testament to this. Her people know it well. Ukrainian resistance is an act of moral courage proving that a people of free spirit is invincible, even when confronted by an imperial philosophy that views the world through a nineteenth-century lens. Zelensky’s address in Davos was a plea for reflection, though it was somewhat eclipsed by Carney’s speech. Zelensky openly criticised Europe, describing it as a "fragmented kaleidoscope of small and medium powers"—hesitant, dependent on the United States, and lost in internal squabbles while Russian aggression persists and Putin’s oil flows freely along European coasts. He proposed that this oil be seized and the proceeds used to fund the legitimate defence of Ukraine and, by extension, our continent.

It is true that the financial assistance provided to Ukraine by the EU since the illegal Russian invasion of 2022 already exceeds 193 billion euros—a considerable sum, surpassing even that of the Americans. Zelensky may, perhaps, have gone too far in his rhetoric. He did, however, have the merit of underlining that without fierce determination, financial means (including those necessary to procure arms), imagination, and political steadfastness, it will be impossible to withstand Russia’s unjustifiable violence.

It would be well for Zelensky to deliver a similar speech in Munich, but to replace criticisms with proposals. And democratic Europe must respond by showing it grasps the danger that the intentions of Putin—and others—represent. The hybrid war against Europe is already underway; and while the greatest threat emerges from the East, we must not lose sight of threats arriving from other quarters.

All of this reminds us that national sovereignty is an inalienable right which we have a responsibility to protect. This is enshrined in the world's commitment to the Charter of the United Nations. Munich must underscore this, while simultaneously placing the reform of the United Nations on the agenda. This is among the most urgent priorities on the international stage. Those countries that cherish the rule of law, the equality of rights between all States, and peace, have here a standard around which to rally. And a priority.

Ukraine: the opinions of Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu

A letter from Carl von Clausewitz

 To the "Good European," Victor Ângelo,

You write of a "dead order" and seek a solution to the carnage in Ukraine. You use the language of philosophers and diplomats, but I must speak to you in the language of the Schwerpunkt—the Center of Gravity.

You ask for a solution? In war, there is no "solution" found in a cabinet; there is only a decision found on the field. War is a trinity: it is composed of the blind instinct of the people (hatred and enmity), the play of probability and chance (the military), and the rational subordination to policy (the government). In Ukraine, this trinity is in total friction.

Here is my counsel on your "solution":

1. Identify the Center of Gravity

A war ends when one side’s Center of Gravity is broken. For Ukraine, the center is not a city, but the Will of the West to sustain its supply. For Russia, the center is the Stability of the Regime in Moscow. If you wish for a solution, you must stop seeking "dialogue" and start seeking the "point of collapse." To end a war, you must make the cost of continuing it exceed the value of the political object. Currently, neither side believes they have reached that point.

2. Beware the "Fog of War" and Friction

You speak of "Strategic Autonomy" and "UN80 Reform." These are beautiful maps, but the map is not the territory. Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. This is Friction. A diplomat’s pen moves easily; a battalion through the mud does not. Your "solution" must account for the fact that Vladimir Putin is operating within the "Fog"—he is betting that your "European Will" is a fragile thing that will shatter under the weight of a long, cold winter.

3. The Political Object defines the Military Aim

You mentioned that the "International Order is dead." If the political object—the restoration of that order—is truly dead, then the military aim in Ukraine has become untethered. A war without a clear political object is merely a slaughter.

• My advice: Europe must decide exactly what its "Political Object" is. Is it the total defeat of Russia (which requires a total mobilization you are not prepared for)? Or is it the survival of a sovereign Ukraine (which requires a "Limited War" strategy)? You cannot have both with the same level of investment.

4. The Defensive is the Stronger Form

You worry that Russia is "intensifying its aggression." Remember my maxim: The defensive form of war is in itself stronger than the offensive. Ukraine has proved this. But the defense has a "culminating point." If Ukraine is pushed beyond its ability to strike back, its defense will become a brittle shell. Your "European Defense Autonomy" must be the "shield of the weak" that allows the defense to remain active and lethal.

5. On the "Spirit of Dialogue"

Dialogue in the midst of a total clash of wills is merely a "breathing space" for the combatants. Do not mistake a pause for a peace. A true solution only arrives when the "diminishing force of the offensive" meets the "mounting power of the defensive" at a point where both sides realize that total victory is a mirage.

My Verdict: Do not seek "optimism," Victor. Seek the "Culminating Point." Strengthen the Ukrainian Center of Gravity until the Russian Will to Power hits a wall of reality. Only when the Kremlin realizes that the "Political Object" (the erasure of Ukraine) is costing more than the "Means" (the Russian State) will the war move from the battlefield back to the "Continuation of Politics"—the negotiating table.

Until then, arm your reason as heavily as you arm your soldiers.

Carl von Clausewitz

________________________________________

The reply from Sun Tzu

From the Pavilion of Infinite Stillness

To the General Clausewitz and the Scholar Victor Ângelo,

I have listened to the General speak of "Centers of Gravity" and "Mass." He speaks of war as a great hammer striking a cold anvil. It is a loud philosophy, full of smoke and the scent of iron. But I tell you: the peak of efficiency is to win without fighting.

General Clausewitz focuses on the Conflict; I focus on the Calculation. He seeks the "Culminating Point" of force; I seek the "Turning Point" of the spirit.

Victor, you speak of a "Dead Order." I say: In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity. Do not mourn the old order. When the old walls crumble, the terrain is finally clear for those who know how to move.

Here is my response to the General’s advice concerning the war in the West:

1. The Strategy of the Sheathed Sword

The General says war is the continuation of politics. I say: All warfare is based on deception. If the Kremlin believes the West is weary, it will strike. If the West shows its teeth too fiercely, the Kremlin will become desperate like a cornered tiger. The "Solution" is not to break the enemy's Center of Gravity with a hammer, but to disrupt his alliances and frustrate his plans before his troops even move. The EU-Mercosur agreement you mentioned is a "Heavenly Move"—it wins a battle in the West by securing the South, without firing a single shot.

2. Know the Enemy and Know Yourself

General Clausewitz speaks of "Friction" and "Fog." I tell you: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. Putin’s strength is his perceived "Will." His weakness is his isolation from the flow of the world. Europe’s strength is its "Order." Its weakness is its hesitation. To win, Europe must make its hesitation look like "Patient Strategy" and its unity look like "Infinite Depth."

3. The Golden Bridge

The General says a war ends when one side collapses. I caution you: Do not press a desperate foe too hard. A surrounded enemy will fight with the strength of ten because he has no choice but to die. If you seek a "solution" in Ukraine, you must build a "Golden Bridge" for your enemy to retreat across. If you leave him no path to save his face, he will burn the world to save his ego. Your diplomacy must be like water: soft enough to offer an exit, but relentless enough to erode his foundation.

4. Speed and Subtlety

Clausewitz speaks of the "Defensive as the Stronger Form." I agree, but with a warning: An army prefers high ground to low, and sunny places to dark. Your "European Defense Autonomy" must not be a static wall (the Low Ground). It must be a "Sunlit Strategy"—an intelligence that sees the enemy’s move before he makes it. Use the "Indirect Way." Strengthen Ukraine not just with steel, but by making the Russian people realize that their leader is leading them into a desert while the rest of the world moves toward the oasis.

5. The Use of "Shi" (Strategic Momentum)

You gather at Davos. Do not use it for "Dialogue"—that is for the weak. Use it to build Shi (Strategic Momentum). When the momentum is high, even a round boulder will roll down a mountain with unstoppable force. If you align the Global South, the European Defense, and the Trade Agreements of the West, the "Momentum of History" will shift. At that point, the Kremlin will not "collapse" under a blow; it will simply find itself standing still while the world moves on without it.

My Verdict: General Clausewitz wants to win the war. I want to make the war impossible to continue. Victor, do not seek a "Decision" on the battlefield alone. Seek to make the enemy’s victory so expensive and his isolation so complete that his own people see his "Will to Power" as a "Will to Ruin."

Victory is not a destination; it is a change in the wind.

Sun Tzu

Nihilism or optimism: the global disorder

 The International Disorder: Nihilism or Optimism?

Victor Ângelo

“God is dead,” proclaimed the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche at the close of the nineteenth century. Fundamentally, this phrase signified that religion—particularly Christianity—had ceased to serve as the principal source of traditional values, and that a new era demanded a different moral framework. Nietzsche’s intent was to draw attention to the necessity of transcending the phase of disorientation that invariably accompanies a paradigm shift, and to encourage reflection upon the future.

Were Nietzsche alive today, he might well have his protagonist declare, “the international order is dead.” Such a statement would imply that the global legal and institutional architecture, which fell into a coma in February 2022, has now, at the dawn of this year, finally expired following recent events and proclamations that have shaken the international stage.

Following this line of thought, one might assert that we are presently living through a period of political and moral nihilism. That is to say, the fundamental norms governing relations between states—such as the inviolable sovereignty of all, the prohibition of force in resolving disputes, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of others—are being openly flouted by global powers. As was recently remarked in an interview with the New York Times, the only moral framework that appears to prevail is that defined by those who wield power. This is the essence of nihilism. Institutions and conventions are regarded as obsolete, ineffective, and thus to be disregarded. Such is the case, among others, with the United Nations system, which has been progressively marginalised by the leaders of the major powers.

It is within this confused and uncertain context that this year’s Davos gathering will take place, from 19 to 23 January. Hundreds of leaders from across the globe, representing government, business, and civil society, will convene in the Swiss town in a “spirit of dialogue”—the event’s guiding theme. It is heartening to speak of dialogue at a time when it is so sorely needed. Above all, it is vital to resist fatigue and cynicism in the face of the complexity of new realities. The current challenges demand courage, candour, and greater diplomatic skill. Dialogue, indeed.

For the first time, a large-scale participation from the Global South is anticipated. This reminds us that the future must take into account the interests and concerns of those countries excluded from the old, developed West. The Global South also seeks to remind us of the need to reconstruct the multilateral system, integrate emerging economies into a balanced framework of global trade, and address issues of development, excessive sovereign debt, health, and climate.

The President of the United States will be present in Davos. It is expected that there will be a meeting with President Zelensky and those European leaders willing to support the implementation of the peace plan for Ukraine. This is an important development, although I remain convinced that we are still far from seeing Vladimir Putin accept the plan in its current form. In recent times, Putin has intensified his aggression and war crimes against Ukraine, thereby signalling his reliance above all on war and the violence of force. For him, the international order that has been law for decades is, in fact, dead.

Europeans must prepare to confront the consequences of this new paradigm, and in particular, the threat now emanating from the Kremlin and other sources. Thus, beyond discussing Europe’s contribution to the execution of a possible, albeit distant, peace plan, it is essential to accelerate cooperation among European states and invest in a coordinated manner in the autonomy of defence within our geopolitical space. In doing so, we demonstrate our understanding that the world has changed and is, for now, a perilous place in which to live.

Simultaneously, Europe should, in alliance with the democracies of the Global South, play a more active role in reforming the multilateral system, especially the United Nations. This is a task that will enable us to face the future with renewed optimism and to build bridges with other regions of the globe. The message here is clear: Europe believes in the importance of international law and stands ready to contribute to a fairer rebalancing of relations between states.

The signing of the EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement, which will take place tomorrow in the Paraguayan capital, illustrates the path that ought to be followed. The presence of Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa in Asunción to sign an agreement that has taken decades to reach fruition largely contradicts the thesis that the international order is dead. I hope that Davos will also reveal that, in these uncertain times, there remains space for imagination and the will to approach the future with optimism.

_________________________________________________________

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-desordem-internacional-niilismo-ou-otimismo

My letter to Friedrich Nietzsche concerning the current international disorder

 Lisbon, 16th January 2026

My dear Friedrich,

I find myself writing to you from a century that you might well have prophesied, yet one which would surely have left even you aghast. You will recall how, in the waning years of the nineteenth century, you famously proclaimed—with characteristic gravitas—that "God is dead." Your assertion was not an observation of a divine passing, but rather a warning: the Christian moral compass had ceased to guide our traditional values, and the dawning era demanded a radically different ethical framework. You were alerting us to the profound disorientation that inevitably accompanies a paradigm shift, urging us to reflect upon what might follow.

Were you alive today, my dear Friedrich, you would perhaps observe that "the international order has perished." Such a statement would signify that the global legal and institutional architecture—which slipped into a comatose state in February 2022—has finally drawn its last breath at the turn of this year, following the recent proclamations and upheavals that have shattered the international stage.

Following this vein of thought, one might argue that we are presently enduring a period of political and moral nihilism. Fundamental norms, such as the sovereignty of states and the prohibition of the use of force, are being openly flouted by global powers. As was noted in a recent exchange with the New York Times, the only prevailing moral framework appears to be that which is dictated by those who hold the reins of power. This is the very quintessence of nihilism. Institutions and conventions are dismissed as obsolete and ineffective; thus is the fate of the United Nations, which has been systematically marginalized by the leaders of the Great Powers.

It is within this nebulous and uncertain context that the Davos summit commences next week, continuing until the 23rd of January. Hundreds of leaders—drawn from the spheres of governance, commerce, and civil society—shall gather in the Swiss mountains under the banner of a "Spirit of Dialogue." It is heartening to speak of dialogue at a time when it is so conspicuously absent. It is vital that we eschew a posture of weariness or cynicism in the face of these complex new realities. Our current challenges demand courage, candour, and heightened diplomatic finesse.

For the first time, we anticipate a large-scale participation from the Global South. This shift serves as a poignant reminder that any viable future must account for the interests and anxieties of nations beyond the Western aegis. These emerging voices remind us that we must reconstruct the multilateral system, integrating rising economies into a balanced global trade framework while addressing the crises of development, sovereign debt, public health, and the climate.

The American President shall be present in Davos, where a meeting is scheduled with President Zelensky and European leaders who remain steadfast in their support for his peace plan. While this is a significant development, I remain convinced that we are yet far from seeing Vladimir Putin accept such terms. Of late, the Kremlin has intensified its aggression, signalling that it prizes war and the raw violence of force above all else. For Putin, the international order that stood for decades has indeed expired.

We Europeans must prepare ourselves for the consequences of this new paradigm—specifically, the threat emanating from the Kremlin and elsewhere. Thus, beyond discussing Europe’s contribution to a distant peace plan, it is indispensable that we accelerate cooperation between European states and invest, in a coordinated fashion, in the strategic defense autonomy of our geopolitical space. In doing so, we acknowledge that the world has changed and is, for the time being, a perilous place to inhabit.

Simultaneously, Europe must play a more proactive role—in alliance with the democracies of the Global South—in reforming the multilateral system, most notably the United Nations. This task allows us to view the future with renewed optimism and to build bridges with other regions of the globe. The message is clear: Europe remains a believer in the sanctity of international law and stands ready to contribute to a rebalancing of relations between states.

The signing of the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, taking place tomorrow in the Paraguayan capital, illustrates the path we must follow. The presence of Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa in Asunción to sign an accord that required decades of gestation belying, in some measure, the thesis that the international order has utterly failed. It is my hope that Davos will also reveal that, even in this age of uncertainty, there remains ample room for the imagination and the will to treat the future with optimism.

Yours in profound reflection,

Victor Ângelo