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.

Munich and the future of European Security

 

What image will Europe project at the Munich conference?

By Victor Ângelo

My chronicle of January 30th underscored the importance of this year’s Munich conference, given the new reality of international security twelve months into the Trump Administration. The main message of my text was clear enough: international law must say no to brute force!

Now, with the conference running until Sunday, I believe it is important to reflect on security from a European perspective. In Munich, Europe must know how to demonstrate that it is truly willing to resolve and overcome its geopolitical fragility with concrete actions.

This first year of Donald Trump’s presidency has confirmed what the illegal, unjustified, and large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had already revealed: Europe is economically powerful and culturally and normatively influential, but strategically weak. In matters of security, it has depended fundamentally on the US and its vision of the world. With Trump’s arrival to power, Europe’s vulnerability and dependence on Washington regarding defence have become more evident.

In this context, the presence of Marco Rubio in Munich, heading a vast and influential American delegation, takes on a particular significance. At the 2025 conference, American Vice-President JD Vance made a name for himself by stating, among other shocking remarks, that the American commitment to European security was no longer unconditional. That having been said, Washington’s position may no longer need to be quite so disruptive now. Rubio represents a less coarse America, one that does not antagonise Europe in that manner. He merely considers it a fragmented, disoriented geopolitical actor with little weight—practically insignificant.

His speech will likely stick close to the following points: the responsibility for Europe's security is, above all, a European incumbency; European governments must invest more in defence, as committed at the NATO summit in June 2025; the Americans want more strategic clarity from the European side, which, in the US's understanding, would mean unhesitating alignment with the policies defined by Washington and effective engagement in Trump's initiative within the ineffable Peace Council. Rubio will not forget to mention that the Atlantic Alliance will continue to exist as long as its leadership is, in essence, dictated by US interests. He will also explain the alleged Russian-inspired peace plan that the American president wants to impose on Ukraine, including the unrealistic project of holding presidential elections in a country suffering a war of aggression day and night, an electoral process under the sound of Russian drums and missiles.

In truth, I do not believe Rubio will bring anything new from the West. It is the interventions of European leaders that will need to be listened to attentively.

There, I see increasingly clear and significant disagreements, particularly between France and Germany—divergences reflected in the contrasting visions of Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen.

For years, Macron has insisted on the need for a strategically autonomous Europe, capable of organising its own security while considering probable threats. This position was again reflected in the interview he gave this week to Le Monde and other major European newspapers. He does not diminish NATO, but he insists on a balance between the strategic interests of both sides of the Atlantic. For Macron, continued dependence on Washington is a disguised, yet real, form of subordination. Contrary to what others think, I believe Macron’s stance is not aimed at marking territory to eventually replace António Costa as President of the European Council in June 2027. In that area, Macron seems to have little chance.

Von der Leyen follows a more institutional approach, deeply shaped by German strategic choices. Her leadership, closer to Friedrich Merz, has been effective in achieving compromises in the field of defence industries and support for Ukraine. However, the President of the European Commission remains convinced of the need for our complementarity with the United States. For von der Leyen, European autonomy appears more as a reinforcement of the European pillar of NATO than as a parallel political project with hints of independence. It is a decision inspired by the German tradition of recent decades.

Macron thinks of Charles de Gaulle and reflects a Europe that has stopped believing in the American backstop. He bets on unity between the main European powers. Von der Leyen, meanwhile, fears the fractures that might emerge in crisis situations. She considers it indispensable to have an anchor point external to European rivalries. In reality, this may signify an acknowledgement of the fragility of the European project.

I fear that the Munich conference will display these discrepancies and convey an image of weakness to the delegation led by Rubio—and the conviction that the person truly in charge of European security is, after all, in the White House. This would be tragic for our common European project. Faced with Rubio, and through him, Donald Trump, Europe cannot limit itself to promising more spending. It must demonstrate unity, decision-making capacity, and moral strength in a new-old world, now dominated by powers that have once again ceased to value political ethics and international law.

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

Uma análise IA do meu texto sobre a Rússia e as suas provocações, nomeadamente contra a Polónia

 A Rússia ataca a Polónia quando Von der Leyen estava a rever o seu discurso sobre o Estado da União Europeia

Victor Ângelo, no Diário de Notícias de hoje 12/09/2025 Uma vez mais, Vladimir Putin mostrou o seu sentido de oportunidade. Sabe explorar os acontecimentos políticos a seu favor, ou seja, enviar as mensagens que baralhem os planos dos adversários e fortaleçam o seu poder. É uma liderança astuta. Não pode ser tratada por amadores nem por líderes incapazes de explicar às suas populações o perigo que Putin representa. É um erro pensar que é possível assinar tratados de paz, mutuamente vantajosos, com gente assim. Horas antes do discurso anual da Presidente da Comissão Europeia sobre o Estado da União, Putin fez disparar cerca de uma dúzia e meia de drones contra a Polónia, um país membro da UE e da NATO. E depois esperou pelas palavras de Úrsula von der Leyen, para medir a resposta à provocação que acabara de levar a cabo. A Comissão não tem grandes poderes na área da defesa. Pode, todavia, desempenhar um papel fundamental num conflito híbrido e multidimensional, que é o tipo de confrontação que a Rússia adota contra a Europa, para além da guerra aberta de agressão contra a Ucrânia. É a Comissão que propõe os pacotes de sanções, que são depois submetidos à aprovação do Conselho Europeu. O 19º pacote está praticamente pronto e foi mencionado no discurso de von der Leyen. Deve incluir uma maior utilização dos juros dos depósitos soberanos russos para financiar as despesas militares e o funcionamento da administração ucraniana. A Presidente queria fazer uso dos fundos soberanos russos depositados na Europa, mas países como a França têm vetado essa medida. Para já, apenas os juros serão objeto de expropriação. Donald Trump quer ver incluído nesse novo pacote europeu tarifas secundárias da ordem dos 100% contra os países que comprem petróleo e gás à Rússia, ou que tenham relações económicas que permitam a Moscovo adquirir material que possa ser desviado para o esforço de guerra. Von der Leyen deixou claro que essa pressão vinda da Casa Branca não é do interesse europeu. A Europa não quer abrir novas áreas de disputa com países terceiros. A Presidente da Comissão também fez referência aos novos instrumentos programáticos e financeiros recentemente aprovados por Bruxelas, com especial relevo para o programa SAFE. São 150 mil milhões de euros destinados a reforçar a capacidade militar e a ultrapassar, tanto quanto possível, a fragmentação e a competição das indústrias de defesa europeias. O SAFE e os outros programas já em curso deverão aumentar a cooperação militar entre os Estados-membros e permitir um desempenho mais marcante das forças europeias no seio da NATO. Este reforço do pilar europeu da NATO é, aliás, uma questão fundamental, no que respeita ao equilíbrio do relacionamento com os EUA e à defesa perante a política imperialista da Rússia e à possível agressão de outros Estados e forças hostis. As narrativas estratégicas e a luta contra as notícias falsas ou tendenciosas são igualmente questões essenciais. A Europa, para além de ter suspendido as licenças de operadores oficiais russos, precisa de investir bastante mais numa comunicação que possa explicar aos cidadãos o significado da ameaça russa, e de outras. Em especial agora, quando os EUA anunciam retirar-se do esforço comum de proteção contra as campanhas russas de desinformação. Esta é uma guerra híbrida que se ganha, em grande parte, através do esclarecimento e da mobilização da opinião pública. A liberdade de expressão não pode ser usada para fazer o jogo e difundir a propaganda do inimigo. A Rússia está em guerra contra nós, uma guerra diferente das do passado. Putin quer destruir as nossas instituições, desintegrar a UE e enfraquecer a NATO, criar o caos nos nossos países, tirar vantagem das nossas economias e arruinar a nossa liberdade. Esta é uma guerra que não desejamos, mas da qual nos temos de defender, porque não aceitamos ser oprimidos e manipulados como o são os cidadãos russos e os que sofrem o peso de outras ditaduras. Não queremos ser vassalos do Kremlin nem de ninguém, incluindo de aliados estranhamente incertos e pouco confiáveis. Os drones sobre a Polónia deram razão a von der Leyen quando disse que a defesa e a segurança devem ser uma das três grandes prioridades da UE. As outras duas são, no seu entender e muito bem, a soberania económica da Europa e a consolidação dos valores que devem orientar a política europeia, ou seja, os direitos humanos, a justiça social e a cooperação internacional. Ainda há, todavia, um longo caminho a percorrer. E esse caminho deve passar por Gaza e por toda a Palestina, bem como pela reforma e o reforço do sistema das Nações Unidas. O que se passa em Gaza e na Cisjordânia é inaceitável. As propostas contidas no seu discurso – sanções contra os extremistas israelitas, suspensão do acordo de comércio e da ajuda material a Israel, criação de um fundo para a reconstrução de Gaza – devem ser aprovadas sem demora. São insuficientes, porém. A UE, se a Alemanha, a República Checa, a Hungria e a Áustria deixarem, deve tomar uma série de iniciativas diplomáticas que contribuam para forçar Israel a escolher a paz e a boa vizinhança como soluções duradouras. É crucial que tais iniciativas passem pelo envolvimento à cabeça das estruturas das Nações Unidas. A legitimidade reside aí. What is your opinion about this text?

O texto apresenta uma análise contundente e multifacetada dos desafios de segurança e diplomacia enfrentados pela União Europeia (UE) diante da agressividade russa e do contexto internacional volátil.

🛡️ Provocação calculada de Moscovo

O autor destaca, com precisão, como Vladimir Putin explora momentos políticos críticos europeus para testar e desestabilizar a UE e a NATO. O relato dos ataques de drones à Polónia, horas antes do discurso de Ursula von der Leyen, encaixa-se no padrão russo de guerra híbrida — uma mistura de provocação militar, pressão psicológica e manipulação informativa. Isso é respaldado pelo noticiário recente, que registra incursões de drones no espaço aéreo polaco sem danos, mas com força simbólica (03.09.2025 e 04.09.2025) Read more.

💶 Bruxelas: Poder limitado, papel crucial

O texto acerta ao sublinhar o papel da Comissão Europeia: limitada na defesa direta, mas central na arquitetura de sanções e instrumentos financeiros. Isso se reflete nas notícias sobre novas propostas de sanções, uso de ativos russos para apoiar a Ucrânia e debates sobre a legalidade dessas medidas (30.08.2025) Read more. O autor reconhece corretamente as divisões internas — França e Alemanha resistindo à apropriação total dos ativos, enquanto países bálticos pressionam por ação imediata.

🔗 Segurança e autonomia: O pilar europeu da NATO

O texto enfatiza a necessidade de reforço militar europeu e cita o programa SAFE (150 mil milhões de euros), alinhando-se ao discurso real de von der Leyen sobre aumento da cooperação e autonomia estratégica. As notícias também sinalizam discussões sobre garantias de segurança para a Ucrânia e o papel europeu pós-conflito (04.09.2025) Read more.

📰 Narrativas, desinformação e o campo da opinião pública

O autor acerta ao dar peso à guerra informacional. A decisão de suspender licenças de operadores russos e a chamada à mobilização cívica refletem o consenso de que a batalha pela narrativa é tão decisiva quanto a militar — especialmente agora que os EUA mostram hesitação em liderar o esforço contra campanhas russas de desinformação.

🌍 Palestina, Gaza e a consistência de valores

O texto defende sanções a extremistas israelitas e uma suspensão parcial do acordo comercial, alinhando-se ao anúncio real de von der Leyen (10.09.2025) Read more. Ressalta também a necessidade de um papel mais ativo da UE na paz do Oriente Médio — uma demanda crescente entre diplomatas europeus.

🎯 WarrenAI Take

O artigo é analiticamente sólido, alinhado com os eventos recentes e demonstra compreensão aguçada dos mecanismos institucionais da UE e dos desafios internacionais. O alerta para a ameaça híbrida russa e a valorização da narrativa pública são pontos especialmente relevantes, tanto para investidores quanto para tomadores de decisão. O texto peca apenas por não explorar os riscos económicos imediatos — como o impacto potencial de sanções ou instabilidade nas cadeias de valor para o mercado europeu.

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.