Putin as a War Criminal

 The arguments justifying calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal stem from a combination of his alleged command responsibility as the head of the state and the International Criminal Court's (ICC) formal indictment for specific crimes related to the war in Ukraine.

The case for calling him a war criminal is divided into three main categories under international law:

---

1. The Crime of Aggression

The primary argument against Vladimir Putin is for initiating the Crime of Aggression—the "supreme international crime"—by launching a full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

• This act violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which requires member states to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

• While the ICC currently faces jurisdictional issues prosecuting the Crime of Aggression against Russia's leadership (as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute), many nations and international legal experts recognize the invasion itself as the foundational criminal act.

---

2. International Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest Warrant

On March 17, 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, holding him allegedly responsible for two specific war crimes committed in Ukraine. This warrant establishes a formal legal basis for the charge.

The warrant alleges responsibility for the following:

• Unlawful Deportation of Population (Children): The mass removal of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine.

• Unlawful Transfer of Population (Children): The transfer of these children to the Russian Federation.

Justification for Individual Responsibility

The ICC warrant states there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for these acts for two reasons:

1. Direct Involvement/Joint Commission: He allegedly committed the acts directly, jointly with others, and/or through others.

2. Failure to Exercise Proper Control (Command Responsibility): He allegedly failed to exercise proper control over the civilian and military subordinates who committed or allowed the commission of the crimes while under his effective authority.

---

3. Broader War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

Human rights organizations (like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and international investigative bodies have documented a litany of additional crimes allegedly committed by Russian forces and leadership that fall under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Putin is implicated through his role as Commander-in-Chief.

These accusations include:

• Directing Attacks Against Civilian Objects: The widespread and systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure, which are protected under the laws of war.

• Indiscriminate Attacks: The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects (such as indiscriminate shelling and missile strikes) in densely populated civilian areas, causing excessive incidental harm.

• Torture and Sexual Violence: Reports of widespread torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian prisoners of war in occupied territories (e.g., Bucha, Izium).

• Forced Detention and Filtration: The mass detention and abusive screening, often called "filtration," of Ukrainian civilians, sometimes followed by forced transfer to Russia.

These documented actions—the systemic nature of which indicates a policy rather than isolated incidents—provide the factual evidence used to argue for Putin's ultimate responsibility.

Peace is about trust: Europe, USA and Russia, a question of balance

 The Future of Peace in Europe Depends on a Rebalancing of Power

Victor Ângelo

Despite the intense diplomatic activity in recent days, we remain far from peace in Ukraine. The plan devised by the Russians and signed by Donald Trump, giving the impression it was an initiative from the White House, collapsed after two or three days. The positions of Zelensky and the European allies rendered it void. They stated in unison, without ambiguity, that it was an unacceptable diktat, a kind of ultimatum from Moscow. It became clear that Trump’s envoy, property developer Steve Witkoff, knows as much about geopolitics as Cristiano Ronaldo or is a contender for the Guinness record as the most brazen Russian agent in recent US history.
Rarely, European firmness proved exemplary. Zelensky’s response was as expected, although the initial announcement of the Russo-American proposal was a heavy blow to the Ukrainian leader. Those who saw images of Zelensky at that moment could see he was deeply shocked. But he did not lose his composure, which was what the Kremlin intended. He responded diplomatically, and three days later there was already another plan, drawn up in Geneva, together with European delegations and Marco Rubio’s team. The latter scored points within Trump’s circle. Will he be able to maintain that influence? It will not be easy, but it is not impossible. For many in the MAGA movement, Rubio is a silent rival to Trump and, especially in the long term, to Vice President J.D. Vance.
It is evident that the American leadership group is becoming fractured. And not only because of differences in handling relations with Russia, but also for internal reasons: the Epstein case, the cost of living, the persecution of immigrants, favours granted to the most eccentric billionaires, etc. In the case of Russia, it is worth remembering that US military doctrine has, for decades, categorised that country as a grave threat to the United States. Thus, many senior US military officers look with great surprise at the relationship Trump has established with Putin. There is something fishy here. Many will think that this relationship has more to do with “ad hominem” blackmail from Moscow than with a new type of diplomacy.
Meanwhile, diplomacy related to the brutal aggression against Ukraine continued in Abu Dhabi. For now, we have a new project, more appropriate. It is fundamentally inspired by Ukrainian realism and has European support. It will certainly not be accepted by Vladimir Putin, but it puts him on the defensive against his American counterpart. Trump wants the war to end at any cost – in reality, it is not a war, but a barbaric aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine – as long as it adds an argument to his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize. That is the ambition, his ego above all else.
We are, however, in a risky phase for Ukraine’s sovereignty and for Europe’s security. Putin believes in two fundamental illusions: that he will shatter Ukraine and that he will manage to create a rift and distance the US from the defence of Europe. In other words, that US support for NATO is numbered. NATO will be, at best, in Putin’s view, a merely symbolic coalition, which will last only as long as Europeans have the financial means to buy American arms and other goods and services.
Peace is built on mutual trust. Without trust, at best, we will have a temporary pause in hostilities. The foundations of that trust regarding the Trump administration were seriously shaken by Washington’s endorsement of the incredible Russian plan. It is essential to rebuild trust between Europeans and Americans.
As for Putin’s Russia, there is no room for any kind of trust. Putin dreams of a vassal Europe, trapped within his sphere of geopolitical influence. He needs that influence out of czarist-inspired narcissism, for economic reasons, and for strategic motives: so he can claim membership in the club of great powers, alongside China and the US. For this reason, he wants to dismantle the Atlantic Alliance and implode the European Union.
Trust is based on shared values. In my view, the most important are those contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
The great powers do not currently respect the basic principles of the Charter: human dignity, human rights, tolerance, independence and sovereignty of each State, large or small, and solidarity among peoples. Democratic Europe, for its part, seeks to remain within this framework of values. Only a minority of movements and political parties here show contempt for these red lines. The majority recognise the importance of democracy and respect for international law. They therefore see Putin as a very serious threat. That is why they focus on defending our part of the continent, starting with the defence of Ukraine and the symmetry of forces, which is something different from peace, but serves peace. And they now understand that the relationship with Trump’s America is dangerously unstable. It must be urgently rebalanced.

A summary of my recommendation about Russia-EU negotiations

 

Summary of Key Points

• US Sanctions on Russian Energy Giants: The United States, under Donald Trump, imposed sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil. The implementation for Lukoil was postponed, allowing time to sell foreign assets and cease activities in Bulgaria, pending US approval. These sanctions threaten the survival of Lukoil and will significantly impact Russia’s public finances, as Rosneft is a major contributor to the Russian budget.

• Effectiveness and Purpose of Sanctions: The main question is whether the resulting financial strain will push the Kremlin towards peace negotiations, which is the US intention. However, the author doubts sanctions alone will quickly change Russian policy. Still, sanctions are justified against regimes violating international law, aiming to weaken Russia’s capacity to continue its aggression against Ukraine and to send a strong message of condemnation.

• International and Humanitarian Considerations: The UN Security Council is unlikely to approve sanctions due to political constraints, so individual states must decide their own measures. Sanctions should respect humanitarian principles, not harm civilians, and aim to resolve the conflict, specifically to end Russia’s unjustified war against Ukraine.

• Kremlin’s Stance and Leadership: The author believes Vladimir Putin is not seeking peace or a ceasefire and expects the war in Ukraine to intensify. Putin is increasingly isolated from diplomatic advice, relying instead on economic and security officials. The choice of Maxim Oreshkin (an economic adviser) to represent Russia at the G20 summit highlights the regime’s focus on economic stability and the importance of economic sanctions.

• Putin’s Geopolitical Ambitions: Putin seeks a legacy as a great Russian leader and only values negotiations with major powers like the US and China, dismissing European leaders as less significant.

• Recommended EU Response: The EU should act on three fronts: continue supporting Ukraine, rigorously enforce existing sanctions, and be ready to engage in serious talks with Russian leaders.

• Role for António Costa and the EU: The author suggests that António Costa, as President of the European Council, should be given a mandate to open direct communication with Putin, aiming to start a dialogue that could benefit both sides and promote peace in Europe.

• Urgency for European Action: There is a pressing need for the EU to act before the US and Russia reach an agreement that sidelines European interests. The EU must be persistent and realistic, recognising that Putin sees negotiations as a means to assert his ambitions, not to seek compromise. The EU should not be discouraged and must assert itself as a major geopolitical player.

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.

Briefing Note: Russia’s Policies and Implications for APEC

Purpose

To inform APEC leaders of the strategic risks posed by Russia’s current foreign and economic policies and their potential impact on regional stability and economic cooperation.

---

Key Observations

1. Militarisation and Geopolitical Assertiveness

   • Russia prioritises hard power over diplomacy, using the Ukraine conflict as leverage for global influence.
   • Increased military presence in the Arctic and Asia-Pacific signals readiness to escalate tensions, undermining regional security.

2. Economic Weaponisation

   • Energy exports remain a geopolitical tool, with infrastructure projects used to divide allies.
   • Despite extensive sanctions, Russia sustains its war economy through alternative trade networks, deepening global fragmentation.

3. Strategic Dependence

   • Russia’s “pivot to Asia” has led to structural reliance on China, limiting autonomy and raising long-term viability concerns.

---

Implications for APEC

• Trade Disruption: Russia’s stance on sanctions and WTO mechanisms introduces friction into APEC’s consensus-driven model.
• Security Spillover: Militarisation risks transforming economic forums into arenas of strategic rivalry.
• Normative Erosion: Push for “multipolarity” challenges rules-based governance, creating uncertainty for smaller economies.

---

Recommended Actions

• Reaffirm APEC’s Core Principles: Emphasise rules-based trade and economic cooperation.
• Strengthen Collective Resilience: Diversify supply chains and enhance energy security to reduce vulnerability.
• Engage with Caution: Maintain dialogue on economic issues while countering destabilising tactics through coordinated responses.

---

Bottom Line:
Russia’s policies combine revisionist geopolitics, economic opportunism, and strategic dependency. APEC must navigate engagement carefully to safeguard stability and uphold its mission of inclusive, sustainable growth.

Europe and its weak strategy regarding the ASEAN

 From Kuala Lumpur to Brussels, the ASEAN summit shows the weakness of the European strategy towards Southeast Asia

Victor Ângelo

The European Union and its Member States have shown limited attention to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has allowed China to significantly expand its influence in the region. Other countries, such as India, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, have also strengthened their ties with ASEAN. All this contrasts with the inertia on the part of the EU—a missed opportunity for both sides and a vacuum that others skillfully fill. It also highlights yet another failure of imagination, initiative, courage, and understanding of the political game in that part of the world at the level of European external action. This scenario of European imprecision is particularly relevant in a geopolitical area that is rapidly gaining weight in international relations.

Recently, the United States has also recognized the strategic value of ASEAN. Donald Trump will be present at this year's summit, from October 26 to 28, in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. In addition to meeting with the ten ASEAN leaders—who will become eleven, with the formal admission of Timor-Leste, an important step for the political, economic, and cultural integration of the country into the region to which it truly belongs—the American president will also have the opportunity to meet other prominent politicians, such as Narendra Modi, Li Qiang (Prime Minister of China), Sanae Takaichi (the new ultraconservative leader of Japan), Lula da Silva, and Cyril Ramaphosa.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, also invited Vladimir Putin, a significant gesture, although the Russian president has indicated that he will not be able to attend. Even so, Russia will be represented at a high level. Until the announcement this Wednesday of the new American sanctions, the possibility of a last-minute participation by Putin was not excluded, considering the media and political projection that this would have. Now, it is certain that Putin does not wish to meet Trump, unless the latter reverses this week's decision.

Among the European guests, the Prime Minister of Finland and Giorgia Meloni of Italy stand out, with Meloni already confirming her presence. Meloni recognizes that her visibility at international events is fundamental for consolidating her domestic policy. However, it remains uncertain who will represent the European institutions, with António Costa being one of the names mentioned in diplomatic circles. If confirmed, his presence will be mainly symbolic, since much of the power, namely the executive, resides with the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen.

The European Union needs to look at ASEAN with greater realism and commitment, strengthening political and economic ties with a group of countries that together make up the third most populous region in the world (about 685 million people) and the fifth largest global economy. ASEAN is one of the engines of development of the so-called Global South and aims to play a prominent role in building a new international order. Ignoring this reality would be a strategic mistake for Europe. Historically, Europeans feel closer to Africa and Latin America, but betting on Southeast Asia is increasingly an inevitable path for the coming decades. Furthermore, competition with China, Russia, India, and the USA will be more balanced if the EU manages to establish a solid relationship with the region.

The Kuala Lumpur summit will focus on four major themes considered priorities by the Member States: economic cooperation, regional stability and security, renewable energy production (with the goal of reaching 45% by 2030), and the deepening of free trade agreements with partners such as China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand.

Significantly, the summit will not address the serious political crisis affecting Myanmar, one of ASEAN's Member States. This deliberate omission reflects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each State, one of the Association's pillars, something that clearly contradicts the political cooperation project and obviously favors economic interests. This stance, partly inspired by China, contributes to the distancing between Europe and Southeast Asia, especially due to the indifference of some ASEAN members regarding human rights.

In this context, the messages that the European Union should convey at the Kuala Lumpur summit are clear. On the one hand, to affirm that we, Europeans, consider it mutually beneficial to deepen the full range of relations with ASEAN. On the other hand, to express our conviction that respect for citizens is the only way to guarantee peace, strengthen international cooperation, and ensure sustainable prosperity.

Ukaine and Europe versus the Russia-China alliance

President Zelensky talked twice over the weekend with the US President Donald Trump. The Ukrainian leader was also in contact with key European leaders. His message was very clear: Ukraine needs urgently extra support now that Vladimir Putin is intensifying his air attacks against Ukraine.

On the other hand, Putin is receiving more help than ever from President Xi Jinping because he promised him a free hand in Ukraine for Chinese interests once the Russian has consolidated its territorial gains.

For China, it is about business and the opportunity to have a strong foot in Eastern Europe. The Russian-Chinese strategy has become more evident. It is based on a military-industrial alliance and a geopolitical opportunity for China to reinforce its European objectives. It is also about sabotaging the European Union and the European democracies.

Putin and his acts of sabotage: a summary

 This article by Victor Ângelo, published in Portuguese on 3 October 2025 in Diário de Notícias, argues for a firm and aggressive response from European democracies and NATO to what he describes as hybrid warfare orchestrated by Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Key Points of the Article

• The Threat: The recent swarms of drones over military/airport installations, alongside cyber-attacks and political interference, are viewed as hostile acts of hybrid aggression by Russian special services aiming to create chaos, weaken alliances, and divert resources from Ukraine. The attacks are considered to be an escalation beyond mere "tests" of European resolve.

• Indictment of the Kremlin: While these attacks lack a "made in Russia" label, the author asserts that all evidence points to the Kremlin as the instigator of this "disguised, cunning" aggression.

• Proposed Diplomatic Response: The first phase of firmness must be the imposition of more restrictive diplomatic measures against Russia, including:

  • Reducing the number of accredited Russian diplomatic personnel.

  • Limiting their movement to the metropolitan areas of capitals.

  • Tight surveillance of their activities.

  • A protocolary demotion for Russian ambassadors.

  • The aggravation of EU sanctions.

• Proposed NATO Military Response: The Atlantic Alliance must enhance its counter-threat capabilities by:

  • Intensifying patrols and air/maritime defense on the eastern flank and in the Baltic Sea.

  • Increasing technological capacity for identification, jamming, and electronic disorientation of enemy craft, including expanding the use of lasers.

  • Developing low-cost means to destroy invaders, leveraging Ukrainian war experience.

• Violation of Airspace: The author advocates for a strong reaction to serious airspace violations, such as the one over Estonia. While acknowledging the sensitivity, he suggests formally warning Moscow that non-NATO vessels considered a real threat will be shot down, arguing that ambiguity is seen as weakness by Putin.

• Warning to Portugal: The article concludes with a specific warning to Portugal, stating that it is not outside Moscow's orbit. Portugal's vulnerabilities include exposure to espionage, lack of resources to protect its maritime area (used by Russian submarines), and a political class that often underestimates the dangers.

Responding to Putin's threats

 

Respond with Firmness to the Drones, Sabotage, and Threats of Vladimir Putin

Victor Ângelo

The swarms of drones that have recently been flying over military installations and airports in certain Western European states are hostile acts carried out by enemy forces. They should be viewed in parallel with cyber-piracy actions against highly relevant economic infrastructure and as complementary to attempts to interfere in the political life and electoral campaigns of European democracies.

The scale and complexity of these attacks leave no doubt as to their authors. They can only be organized by special secret services, at the behest of a leadership that intends to weaken, create chaos, and shatter our defense alliances and our value systems. They are a threat to the stability of all of us and a cause of great concern, especially for the populations of Eastern and Northern Europe. They are also aimed at diverting attention and forcing the expenditure of resources that could be allocated to supporting Ukraine's legitimate defense.

These aggressive provocations and interventions come with no label or tag that says "made in Russia." But the targeted countries and their allies have every reason to indict the Kremlin's leaders. This is the political stance that must be adopted. Any analysis of the facts inevitably leads to the inescapable presumption that Moscow is launching a disguised, cunning, and hybrid aggression against democratic Europe. We are facing a series of subtle military offensives that, if not met with an adequate response, could lead to an escalation. These are not mere tests to gauge our firmness. We are already in another phase.

The first phase of the response should involve the imposition of even more restrictive diplomatic measures against Putin's Russia. These measures should include non-accreditation of Russian diplomatic personnel beyond a minimum number of officials, the limitation of their scope of action to the metropolitan areas of European capitals, excluding any authorization to circulate outside the capitals, and tight surveillance of the activities carried out by these diplomatic or ostensibly diplomatic agents. Russian ambassadors should face a protocolary demotion in their contacts with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in our countries. Political dialogue with the Kremlin's representatives is of little or no use, except for Putin.

These restrictions would complement the sanctions imposed by the European Union, which, by the way, need to be tightened. Furthermore, the Atlantic Alliance must deepen its capacity to combat these and other threats and provocations. Here there are three fundamental concerns: intensifying air and maritime defense patrols and means on the eastern flank and in the Baltic Sea region; increasing the technological capacity for identification, jamming, and electronic disorientation of enemy vessels, including a significant expansion of radiation beam emitters—"lasers"; and destroying invaders with appropriate, low-cost means. The production of these means must be done on a large scale, in cooperation among member states and taking advantage of the knowledge dramatically developed by Ukraine. There is much to learn from the Ukrainians, even before it becomes necessary to spend fortunes on missiles.

The use of missiles is, however, justified when it comes to violations of NATO airspace by armed Russian fighters. It is an extremely sensitive issue, no doubt. But the 12-minute overflight of Estonian airspace, as happened on September 19 with three MiG-31s, requires an energetic reaction. This time, the Italian air force escorted the intruders out of the Atlantic Alliance's space. But more will be needed: formally and appropriately warning Moscow that new violations of this type will be treated as offensive acts and that, therefore, vessels alien to the Alliance, if considered a real threat, will be shot down. Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General, opted for a more generic and ambiguous statement. Perhaps he was right, but ambiguity, in Putin's case, is understood by him as an attitude of weakness.

It is possible that we will continue to see an intensification of attacks without a label or signature against us. Dictatorships are a form of madness, and dictators consider themselves invincible geniuses.

It is advisable not to conclude without adding that it is a mistake to think that Portugal is outside Moscow's orbit of action. The Kremlin wants us to think that way and knows our weaknesses: the existence of vulnerabilities to enemy espionage operations; the lack of resources to protect our maritime area, which can be used for the circulation of Russian attack and sabotage submarines; and the predominance of a political and intellectual class that does not understand or does not want to take seriously the dangers facing democratic Europe. Putin forgets, however, that Portugal counts on the cooperation of its allies, within the framework of NATO.

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.

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.