Diplomacy today: the art of deception?

The Diplomacy of Deception: War and Cynicism in the Easter Season

Victor Angelo

We enter this Judeo-Christian Easter period with a world marked by instability, prolonged violence, and a disturbing normalisation of war. From Ukraine to the Middle East, and including Iran, conflicts are accumulating that expose not only the marginalisation of traditional diplomacy but also a growing cynicism in international relations. Instead of the pursuit of peace, we are witnessing the instrumentalisation of diplomacy as a Trojan horse for force and aggression, a systematic contempt for International Law, and the accelerated erosion of the multilateral order built after 1945.

Regardless, this is one of those times of year that demands we speak even louder, and with total courage, about the importance of peace and ethics in politics and life.

In the case of Lebanon, the answer is clear: the violence and the gravest humanitarian crisis the country faces have no end in sight. Benjamin Netanyahu's government is betting on war and the destruction of the forces it classifies as enemies. His government's actions also have a very negative impact on the international image and the future of Israel—something that, it seems to me, does not receive due attention. The Israeli people are held captive by a coalition of extremist fanatics who manipulate the country's public opinion and use racism, the illusion of an ethno-religious belief, and fear as instruments to consolidate power.

Netanyahu disregards international norms and United Nations resolutions. His political decisions and the resulting military campaigns will one day be judged in the international courts based in The Hague. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) has a moral obligation to condemn the policies of Netanyahu's government and to maintain a diplomatic distance from that regime.

This should, in fact, be the EU’s diplomatic practice when dealing with regimes that do not respect International Law. This is called soft power: a coherent position in the face of global or regional challenges, based on principles established as International Law over decades. The EU's geopolitical strength must lie in an unambiguous diplomacy, free from indecision or opportunism. To be seen by the rest of the world as a Union that follows an international policy based on convenience—in the vein of double standards—might be considered by many as political realism. But that type of realism leads to the disregard for Human Rights and to the crises currently crushing the Middle East and other parts of the world. Geopolitical realism is a historical step backwards.

The warlords practise the diplomacy of deception. It is an error to classify this practice as the diplomacy of chaos and improvisation. The politicians behind the aggressions against Ukraine, Iran, the rest of the Middle East, and other regions, pretend to be ready to negotiate. However, they follow a deliberate strategy of disruption. They know what they are doing. Diplomacy masks bellicose intent. There may be a good measure of historical ignorance and miscalculation, but the primary explanation for their decisions lies in the return to the old idea of "gunboat diplomacy" as the engine of international relations.

The war of aggression against Iran, which has political and economic consequences reaching far beyond the collapse of the Middle East, showed that traditional diplomacy—based on treaties, protocols, and predictability—has ceased to matter to leaders like Donald Trump. It has been this way since 2014 and, on a large scale, since 2022 with Vladimir Putin.

The diplomatic initiatives that pretend to be underway hide a preference for the theory of shock and confrontation, and an imperial Diktat philosophy inspired by the 19th-century world and the reality experienced until the end of the Second World War. The ruse involves keeping adversaries and allies in a climate of constant pressure and uncertainty, acting on the basis of surprise. It is not about improvising, but rather about surprising in order to attempt to dominate.

Surprise causes institutional paralysis, namely at the level of multilateral systems and diplomatic alliances. In reality, in Trump's case, it endangers the continuity of the UN's political dimension and the credibility of NATO. Within these and other multilateral institutional frameworks, trust disappears—which is the foundation of effective diplomacy—and with the loss of trust, the future of these institutions enters a phase of absolute uncertainty. I believe it is naive not to see this danger.

What should the response of European States be? Subtly clear. It must be based, concretely, on firmness and diplomatic distancing while continuing to insist on the value of alliances, which must not compromise multilateral cooperation. European leaders must also stress that it is vital to bring an end, without further delay, to the armed aggressions currently underway. Moreover, Europe needs to understand that an unpredictable international reality based on subordination to a problematic ally favours the political centrality of other States—in this case, China.

China seeks to be seen as a bulwark of stability and the sturdiest pillar of multilateralism. The big question, besides it being an authoritarian power, is whether the Chinese economy can sustain this global leadership role that is falling into its lap.

In any case, Europe cannot afford to lose out in this competition for centrality. Any imbalance that favours a superpower, even one as apparently predictable as China, contains, in the long run, a great risk of conflict.

This Easter, the message I dare to address to European leaders is summarised as follows: it is fundamental to resurrect. 

Ukraine, Iran and the European geopolitical priorities

 

Ukraine or Iran? The Frontier of European Sovereignty

By Victor Ângelo

The war launched on 28 February by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a flashpoint of instability in the Middle East and a high-risk global disruption. It is the result of a labyrinthine decision that raises many questions. For this reason, it has become the most debated topic in various international arenas. The angles of analysis are numerous: the legality of the decision, its objectives—including Iran’s nuclear power and the essence of its regime—geopolitical, macroeconomic, and humanitarian implications, the absolute marginalisation of diplomacy and the multilateral political system, as well as issues related to American domestic politics.

For us, it is also the shock that has exposed the European Union’s strategic hesitations. While the world wonders about the future, Europe faces an undeniable truth: by allowing itself to be dragged into the Persian Gulf, it risks forgetting that the future of our continent will be decided, in large part, on the plains of Ukraine.

For Europe, supporting Ukraine is not just any foreign policy choice among others—it is an absolute priority. It concerns the defence of our territorial integrity and our values, the security of neighbouring countries seeking to join the community, and the survival of the European project itself. Russian aggression targets not only Kyiv, but above all the demolition of the entire architecture of cooperation that has sustained peace on our continent since 1945.

Ukraine’s return to a solid and just peace will reinforce the conviction that European borders remain inviolable. For Europe, to lose would herald a future of submission to Moscow or an endless dependence on a Washington that is now increasingly distant from European philosophy and political choices.

Leaving Russia aside, let us add that the EU cannot be subordinate to American zig-zags and interests. Partnership and alliance must not be synonymous with vassalage. This does not imply waiving the right to criticise or sanction autocratic regimes. Sanctions are a way to resolve disputes between states without resorting to war. What remains unacceptable are armed conflicts and military actions outside the legal framework of the United Nations.

An alarming dimension of the current conflict in the Middle East is the immediate drainage of resources that would be vital for the legitimate defence of Ukraine. Recent estimates indicate that more than 1,000 Patriot (PAC-3) interceptor missiles have already been fired against Iranian attacks since 28 February. It is a contrast in which Ukraine loses out, despite the gravity and legitimacy of its situation being incomparably superior. In four years of resistance, Ukraine has received fewer than 600 of these very same interceptor missiles.

This disparity suggests that the Trump administration markedly prioritises the regional objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over European democracies. Brussels cannot stand by in silence while the "shield" that should protect the Ukrainian air space is consumed in a strange war in the Middle East. Every resource spent in the Middle East represents a new opportunity for the Russian missiles that massacre the Ukrainian people day and night.

It is in the light of this strategic error that the recent position of the European leadership must be read. In this scenario, the message Ursula von der Leyen delivered this week to EU ambassadors is profoundly ambiguous. The speech left the impression that von der Leyen has moved closer to the ideas of Trump and Netanyahu than to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the specific case of the attacks on Iran, von der Leyen echoed the arguments—the pretexts, to be more precise—repeatedly mentioned by Washington and Tel Aviv rather than International Law. She abandoned the field of neutrality and mediation, once again weakened Kaja Kallas’s more dialogue-oriented line, and left a significant portion of European observers perplexed, including important wings of the European Parliament.

Europe must be seen by the rest of the globe as a space of values and compliance with international law, of geopolitical balance, and as a defender of the multilateral system. Our strength lies there: in cooperation with the countries of the South who see in International Law the protection they require. By adopting the rhetoric of "military force," as if Europe could become an armed superpower overnight, the President of the Commission seemed to ignore that the true authority of our Union rests on the acceptance of universal values and solidarity with the different peoples of the world. As António Costa stressed after the President’s speech, the EU must defend the international order based on rules. Costa left no room for ambiguity.

I, too, do not wish to be seen as ambiguous. I am against submission, and I do not defend a policy of neutrality, because not choosing is in itself a choice, and rarely the best one. I advocate neither silence nor indifference. As Dante said more than seven centuries ago in his monumental work, the Divine Comedy: "the most pitiless flames in Hell are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis." Respect for International Law and the right to self-defence are not neutral. They are civilised ways of saying no to arbitrary decisions, the use of brute force, and attacks against human rights. It is this crystal clarity that I expect from European leaders and that the future demands of us.

Does the Board of Peace has wings?

 

Geopolitical Notes: The International Order and Contemporary Charades

---

The Board of Peace: What is its Future?

By Victor Ângelo

Yesterday, the inaugural meeting of the Peace Council took place in Washington—a surreal initiative championed by Donald Trump. At the time of writing, the details of the ceremony have not yet been made public. I know only that no country from sub-Saharan Africa was invited, and that the G7 nations, alongside India, Brazil, the majority of Latin America, and other pre-eminent global actors, were summarily ignored. Peace, in Mr Trump’s conception, is forged by seating at the same table—as members with full rights—Viktor Orbán (the EU leader who enjoys special consideration from the current American administration, as Marco Rubio explicitly stated this week), Alexander Lukashenko, the illegitimate president of Belarus, and Javier Milei, the eccentric head of the Argentine state.

Given the peculiar nature of this project, I was prepared to suggest that Don Quixote de La Mancha—an illustrious knight with an egregious record of tilting at windmills—should likewise join the new organisation’s Executive Committee. He would bring a certain equilibrium to a group that includes, among others, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner; Steve Witkoff, a great admirer of Vladimir Putin; and Tony Blair, a politician who never misses an opportunity to earn a few pence by advising leaders whose reputations require a marketing fillip in the eyes of international public opinion. But, Don Quixote would not be invited, perhaps for want of sponsorship from the Heritage Foundation—authors of Project 2025, which largely underpins the current White House policy. Nor, it seems, did he secure the patronage of Benjamin Netanyahu or the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the famous Mohammed bin Salman, both of whom are distinguished figures associated with this new Peace Board.

Curiously, Ajay Banga, the President of the World Bank, holds a permanent seat within the Board’s inner sanctum—the Executive Committee. Conversely, António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, is nowhere to be found. The recent proclamations emanating from Washington regarding the relative importance of the UN system are merely platitudes intended to pacify the international community.

Despite denials from Trump’s subordinates, the Board of Peace represents a significant step towards attempting to dismantle the United Nations Security Council. Washington recognises that the Security Council has reached an intractable impasse. There is no prospect of reform and, furthermore, it grants immense power to China and other veto-wielding nations. Mr Trump considers all of this contrary to American interests and, above all, to the global influence of his own "extraordinary and genial" persona.

The concept of a Peace Council was originally approved on 17 November 2025 by the UN Security Council (Resolution 2803), with a mandate strictly limited to seeking a solution for the tragedy in Gaza. It was intended as a temporary, transitional administration tasked with coordinating the reconstruction of Gaza and commanding an international stabilisation force.

The body inaugurated yesterday is something quite different; it flouts the terms of Resolution 2803 and assumes a supposedly universal mandate. It is an abuse of power and yet another act of sabotage against the credibility of the UN and its central organ, the Security Council. Every political leader who declined Trump’s invitation, including Pope Leo XIV, grasped and disapproved of the American president’s true intentions.

The agenda of this Board of Peace shall be dictated by Donald Trump, now and forevermore. It will possess a significant real estate component. "Trumpian peace" will adopt a more corporate definition: the submission of the weak to the strong. Reconstruction will primarily signify the proliferation of luxury condominiums.

Had Don Quixote, or a knight of similar virtuous nobility, been admitted, he would have insisted on including situations such as the one currently unfolding in Cuba. International observers consider the country to be facing a grave socio-economic and humanitarian crisis. The Western media—with the exception of a few newspapers —has opted for silence regarding this crisis, which results from the escalation of political confrontation imposed by the Trump Administration. The primary instrument of pressure is an almost total blockade, in effect since late January, on Cuba’s access to foreign fuel. This decision has paralysed essential basic services: healthcare, water, food, electricity, waste management, and transport. As in other similar situations I have witnessed, it is the common citizens who are reduced to absolute destitution. Political leaders and those with relatives abroad invariably find alternative solutions. Thus, the crisis sharpens for the poorest, and the anticipated popular uprising fails to materialise.

These blockades are an unacceptable political gamble, reminiscent of the sieges of castles and boroughs in the Middle Ages. Such actions are prohibited by modern international law, as they constitute indiscriminate punishment with a collective impact. UN human rights experts categorise this energy siege as a "grave violation of international law" and an act of "extreme economic coercion" that threatens to lead to genocide through the deprivation of the means of subsistence.

As was remarked recently in Davos and Munich, we have returned to the rules of yesteryear—to the law of the cannon.

Fortunately, Ukraine continues to remind us of the philosophy of Sun Tzu, a vision I repeat whenever the opportunity arises: in the face of a war of aggression, peace is achieved through moral courage and strategic imagination in the legitimate defence of the aggrieved. I see no one among the guests at yesterday’s "beija-mão" (ceremonial hand-kissing) who possessed the audacity to remind Donald Trump of this truth.

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.