USA and Iran, a very serious conflict: what's next?

A Profoundly Perilous and Complex Confrontation: The USA and Iran

Victor Ângelo

Are we on the precipice of an armed conflict between Iran and the United States? This remains one of the pre-eminent questions of our days. The answer is neither simple nor definitive. Indeed, the risk may be considered imminent. However, the costs for both parties—and for the world at large—would be so catastrophic that it is both necessary and urgent to reach an accommodation.

Mediation ought to be undertaken by regional states or the more influential members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation—some closer to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, others to the Shia practice—provided they are acceptable to both Washington and Tehran. Ideally, the responsibility would have been vested in the UN or India. Regrettably, neither the UN Secretary-General nor the Prime Minister of India possesses sufficient credibility in this instance. Narendra Modi squandered his political capital regarding the Middle East the moment he chose to anchor his domestic power in the marginalisation of India’s Muslim citizens. He is an autocrat who plays the ethnic card and resorts to populism to retain his grip on power.

As for António Guterres, he carries no weight in Washington and is perceived in Tehran as an outsider—a Westerner approaching the twilight of his tenure. He is regarded as a Secretary-General for humanitarian causes and little else. For many, he lacks the political stature and the requisite "vigour" for conflict resolution. The fact remains that Guterres has been plagued by misfortune. Enduring two Trump administrations, each more deleterious than the last, is a singular stroke of ill luck.

The reality is that we are witnessing a formidable military escalation in the Persian Gulf, one of the world’s most sensitive regions. This escalation could trigger an open war at any moment. This is a dispute of immense complexity. The nuclear carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is currently in the Persian Gulf, accompanied by its strike group, bristling with hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and supported by elite fighter jets, satellites, and surveillance drones that monitor every movement within Iran and its territorial waters. Furthermore, the US maintains tens of thousands of personnel across five bases in the region. They also conduct constant policing of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery for oil supplies, primarily to China, but also to India. Should either the US or Iran open a front in this transit zone, they would impede, or at the very least disrupt, the daily passage of approximately 20% of the world’s trade in oil and liquefied natural gas. The economic fallout of such a confrontation would be dramatic, both for the region and for the economies of China and numerous other nations.

Few stand to benefit from such a crisis. It is, however, difficult to believe that a deployment of American forces of such formidable proportions has merely deterrent objectives, regardless of protestations to the contrary.

On the Iranian side, military capacity is significantly inferior to that of the Americans. Currently, following the setbacks of its allies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Yemen, and Gaza, its strategic strength rests primarily on three pillars: its vast and diversified ballistic arsenal, the mass production of drones, and the ability to sever navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb—the maritime bottleneck connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and, by extension, the Indian Ocean. Bab el-Mandeb is a vital route through which a significant portion of global trade traditionally flows.

In truth, when considering Iran, one must account for a fourth pillar: the religious fanaticism and the ferocious dictatorship that underpin Iranian political power. It was this volatile mixture of fanaticism and disregard for human life that formed the backbone of the barbaric repression against the populace last month, resulting in an incalculable number of victims. The conclusion is simple: by the standards of modern humanism, the Ayatollahs’ regime resides in a world of five centuries ago—the heart of the Dark Ages. It cannot be countenanced in this day and age, however much one respects national sovereignty or the internal politics of a state. This is a message Guterres ought to convey to Xi Jinping, reminding him that the sovereignty of any state begins with respect for the dignity and human rights of its citizens.

Xi Jinping might, indeed, begin by revisiting the principles adopted by Deng Xiaoping following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. Deng was the architect of "socialism with Chinese characteristics"—the leader who modernised China, liberalised the economy beyond state control, invited foreign investment, and ended the agriculture of famine. Xi Jinping, however, wagers primarily on absolute power, reminiscent of the Maoist era, coupled with unbridled economic capitalism and a personal brand of rivalry and competition against the US. He is above all preoccupied with Chinese supremacy in military, technological, economic, and geopolitical spheres. Consequently, he errs by aligning himself with powers that view geopolitics through an archaic lens—notably Iran and Russia, another staunch ally of the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran. Xi views the future as a zero-sum rivalry between his nation and the United States, proving that he regards global challenges and international solidarity merely as pawns in China’s international geopolitical gambit.

If Iran can only rely on allies of such a kind, the answer to my initial question must be: let there be resolve, extensive diplomacy, and an absolute respect for citizens and for peace.

President Trump in Asia: Power, Adulation, and the Rearrangement of Forces in a New Era

My geopolitical calendar differs from the conventional one. The twentieth century era, marked by two major wars, the Cold War, decolonisation, and large-scale industrial expansion, ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is when, in my reading of history, the twenty-first century began. We entered a period of economic globalisation, multilateralism and international cooperation, the development of democratic regimes, and a focus on sustainability and major global challenges.

My calendar also tells me that the twenty-first century was rather short. It seems to have ended with Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Times changed then, with a return to former practices, the undisguised use of military and economic force as determining factors in international relations. At the same time, we have witnessed an accelerated race towards the future, driven by technological transformations and the digital revolution. The concern about inequalities between peoples has given way to insensitivity regarding development issues.

We are now in a strange and ambiguous period of universal history: we live simultaneously in the past and the future. We are connected by thousands of fibre optic cables and an increasing number of satellites. Global information is instantaneous, but it seems we are rapidly returning to old nationalist ideas, to every man for himself.

Indifference has become a distinctive feature of this new era. The excess of data ends up anaesthetising us. We become oblivious to what happens outside our immediate circle. This apathy makes it easier for populist, extremist political leaders to manipulate public opinion, using digital platforms to influence citizens’ behaviour. Paradoxically or not, the manipulators themselves end up listening to their own clamour and seem to believe the narratives they create. Thus, they fuel the cycle of misinformation and collective detachment from the major issues that remain unresolved.

In this context, commitment to critical thinking becomes fundamental. It is necessary to know how to question, analyse and interpret the intentions hidden in messages. Developing the ability to ask pertinent questions and assess the credibility of sources is essential to avoid manipulation and conformity. As Socrates argued 2,500 years ago, exploring alternative ideas and challenging established opinions is politically indispensable in a democracy.

This reflection originated from a recent comment made on one of our television channels about the new Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile, known in Russia as 9M730 Burevestnik and in NATO as Skyfall. Vladimir Putin announced that on 21 October the missile had been launched and that the test was a success. He added that the device had been airborne for 15 hours, covering more than 14,000 kilometres, and could therefore be directed at a target in the most remote corner of the planet. He also emphasised that no other state has the capability to intercept it. In other words, Russia was claiming to have taken another step towards consolidating its place at the forefront of the new era, the era of confrontation and force.

The commentator, a person I respect, said that Trump had “blithely” ignored Putin’s announcement. The reason for Trump’s indifference was missing.

I think it is relevant to try to understand this apparent disdain. I say apparent because yesterday the American president ordered his armed forces to begin a programme of nuclear tests, something that had not happened for more than three decades.

In my analysis, Trump, who has spent the week in Asia, is neither afraid of Russia nor particularly interested in Putin, except regarding the Russian war against Ukraine. He wants to add peace in Ukraine to his list of supposed peace treaties, always with the obsession for the Nobel Peace Prize. At this moment, today, Friday, he is convinced that Putin is the main obstacle to a ceasefire. Saturday, we shall see.

Apart from that, it has become clear in recent days that the absolute priority of the US administration is rivalry with China. His tour of Asia sought to demonstrate the influence and power of the United States in a region increasingly close to China. That is why Trump was in Malaysia, at the ASEAN summit, then in Japan, South Korea, and showed moderation at yesterday’s meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. In addition to trade agreements, several of them linked to cutting-edge technologies that will define the coming years, the success of Trump’s presence in Asia and the adulation he received reinforced his illusion that the US has decisive influence in that part of the globe. Putin’s missile, however powerful it may be—something yet to be confirmed—does not matter to Trump nor distract him, as he considers the fundamental priority to be relations with Asia, in the context of competition with China.

He makes, I believe, a superficial and mistaken reading of reality. He needs to understand that this new century, which began in 2022, seems to be heading towards the de facto consolidation of the strategic alliance between China and Russia.

Are you talking about the UN reform?

 The future demands political courage, strategic vision, and a UN that is respected

Victor Ângelo

Eighty years ago, on October 24, 1945, the UN Charter came into force, having been approved four months earlier in San Francisco. That is why this date in October is celebrated annually as United Nations Day.

I am referring to the political part of the organization. The specialized agencies, such as FAO, UNESCO, WHO, ILO, and all the others, emerged at different times. Each has its own history, as well as its own specific governance structures, independent of the authority of the Secretary-General (SG). Over time, special programs and funds also emerged, such as WFP, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, and several others—a long list of acronyms. These programs and funds are headed by individuals chosen by the SG, mostly in response to pressure from some of the more powerful states. They do not belong to the same division that includes the specialized agencies.

The system is in crisis. But if the UN did not exist, it would be necessary, even in today’s confusing times, to invent it. This is a frequently repeated idea.

The United Nations exists; there is no need for any creative exercise. But President Xi Jinping, who also contributes to the marginalization of the UN and seeks to take advantage of it, now proposes an alternative system, inspired by his vision of China’s central role in the world. He had already proposed a Global Development Initiative, another on international security, and yet another called the Global Civilization Initiative. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which took place less than two months ago, Xi completed the picture and proposed the missing initiative, on global governance. That is, on the principles that should regulate relations between states. When I say he completed the picture, I am referring to four fundamental pillars of the UN: development, peace, human dignity, and now, the political one.

Xi’s proposal on international governance is little more than a restatement of the content of the United Nations Charter in other words. The five basic principles he proposes for global governance are contained in the Charter. Xi refers to respect for the sovereignty of each state, including retrograde and dictatorial regimes; subordination to the rules of international law; defense of multilateralism and the role of the United Nations—something that China itself does not practice when it is inconvenient; the value of people, who should be the main concern in political matters; and the need to achieve concrete results in solving global problems. There is certainly no significant disagreement with these ideas. The Chinese initiative is basically a political maneuver.

The problem is that these principles are often ignored by several member states, starting with the great powers such as China, Russia, and the United States of America, and by states outside international law, such as North Korea or Israel.

Thus, the United Nations ceases to be the central forum for international relations, discussion, and resolution of major conflicts. The blame lies with certain member states, and in particular, with the malfunctioning and lack of representativeness of the Security Council (SC). The UN has been completely marginalized in the cases of Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, the end of the embargo against Cuba, and so on. However, the real problem lies with the SC: without a Council that represents the realities of the 21st century, the political UN will continue to live in the past and be doomed to decline.

The plan that President Donald Trump had adopted regarding the dramatic crisis in Gaza—a vague plan that is practically impossible to carry out in its key points—does not mention the UN or assign it any kind of responsibility. Even if it is discussed in the Security Council, which is not yet confirmed, the various points imposed by President Trump do not take into account the experience accumulated in similar situations. It is a plan that was not negotiated by the interested parties—Israel and Palestine—that is, it did not follow a fundamental procedure in peacebuilding. I fear that it will achieve little beyond the release of the remaining living hostages, the freedom of a group of prisoners held in Israel, and a temporary and insufficient humanitarian opening in the face of the absolutely basic needs of the civilians still surviving in Gaza.

The SG is trying to implement a process of organizational reform, which he called UN80. In reality, the effort is little more than a bureaucratic response to the organization’s financial crisis. Instead of insisting, day and night, that delinquent states pay their dues and mandatory contributions on time, and clearly defining what justifies the existence of the UN, the SG chose the option that goes over better with certain leaders and their finance ministries: eliminate jobs, reduce the scope and functioning of field missions, transfer services to cities where the cost of living is lower than in New York or Geneva. The refrain is “do less with fewer resources.” In fact, it should be another: “making peace and promoting human dignity require everyone’s contribution and respect for the UN’s courageous voice.” That assertion is the only one consistent with the defense of international cooperation and multilateralism. That is what I learned and applied over decades.

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.

China comes to Poland

 A drone that appears to be a Chinese-designed Gerbera - was found in Mniszkow, around 200 miles from the border between Poland and Ukraine. China's involvement side-by-side with Russia in the aggression against Ukraine seems obvious. Even if we consider that this drone looks very much as a decoy.

What is original in my Diário de Notícias (05/09/2025) text about the Tianjin SCO summit

 What is not original:

• The core facts: The existence and location of the SCO summit in Tianjin, the attendance of key leaders like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi, and the announcement of Xi's "Global Governance Initiative" are all established facts widely reported by international news and political analysis.

• The main geopolitical themes: The analysis of the SCO as a counterweight to Western influence, the concept of a multipolar world order, and the idea that Trump's policies pushed Russia and India closer to China are common topics in contemporary geopolitical discourse. The idea of a "Reverse Nixon" pivot, where Trump's policies inadvertently strengthen the Sino-Russian-Indian axis, is also a concept discussed by other analysts.

What is original:

• https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-reforma-da-ordem-mundial-%C3%A9-maior-do-que-a-china

• The author's personal experience and authority: Victor Ângelo's past role as a former high-ranking UN official (specifically, a former Deputy Secretary-General of the UN) gives his commentary a unique angle. He's not just a journalist or academic; he's someone with firsthand experience working within the very international institutions he is critiquing. This background adds a layer of authenticity and personal insight that sets his text apart.

• The "prisoner" analogy: The powerful, if highly subjective, comparison of António Guterres to a "prisioneiro a bater palmas ao juiz" (a prisoner applauding the judge) is a striking and memorable piece of original rhetoric. It goes beyond a simple critique to express a deep sense of disappointment and betrayal from an insider's perspective. This emotional and rhetorical flourish is a key element of the text's originality.

• The focus on symbolism: The entire article is built around the symbolic power of the photograph and the location of the summit. This focus on "an image is worth a thousand words" allows the author to tell a story about the changing world order in a more evocative way than a dry, fact-based report. The emphasis on Xi as a "dominant figure" and Modi as an unignorable presence is the author's personal interpretation, which serves as the backbone of his argument.

In conclusion, the text is not original in its factual basis, but it is original in its insider's perspective, strong rhetorical flair, and symbolic framing. It uses familiar facts to present a highly personal and opinionated take on a major global event, making it a distinctive piece of commentary.

China wants to become the leading nation in international affairs

 

The Summit of Tianjin and the Shifting Global Order

Victor Ângelo’s article, "The reform of the world order is greater than China," published today 05/09/2025 in Lisbon's Diário de Notícias, analyses the Tianjin Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), positioning it as a pivotal event in the geopolitical landscape. The author highlights a photograph of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin with Narendra Modi in the background, seeing it as a powerful symbol of a new international order. In this image, Xi is the dominant figure, while Putin is less prominent and Modi represents India's growing importance. The summit's location in Tianjin, a port city, also underscores the Chinese leadership's focus on international trade.

---

Xi Jinping's Ambitions vs. the Role of the UN

Ângelo argues that Xi Jinping's "Global Governance Initiative," announced at the summit, is an attempt to position China's global policy as an alternative to the Western model. However, the author questions the sincerity of this proposal, suggesting that if China genuinely supported multilateralism, it would have prioritised the reform of the United Nations (UN) under António Guterres. The article expresses concern that Guterres was present at the summit and applauded an initiative that could threaten the UN's relevance.

---

Geopolitical Tensions and India's Strategic Role

The summit is portrayed as a gathering of nations that oppose the established international order, largely in response to Donald Trump's "America First" policy. The author notes that Trump's approach ironically brought China and Russia closer and pushed India into their orbit. The article also points out Modi's clever political strategy: while attending the summit to strengthen ties with China and Russia, he first stopped in Japan to sign cooperation agreements. This, according to Ângelo, shows that Modi "knows how to play on multiple boards" and that the future of the world is being shaped in Asia, by Asia, and for all of Asia.

Deep Seek and Light Trump: the new globalism

 Artificial Intelligence, the competition between the great powers and Trump's disorientation

Victor Angelo

As in previous weeks, the week began with a big surprise, this time coming from China. It was the emergence of a new version in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), an efficient and incredibly cheap Chinese program, competing at the highest level with the very expensive solutions coming from the USA. It came up with the name DeepSeek and is ready to give an instant response in a variety of languages. The news, which in just a few hours caused American and European technology companies to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in the capital markets, brought with it two major messages.

The first is about money, showing that it is possible to successfully invest in AI without spending the fabulous sums that large North American multinationals have been spending. The Chinese experience seems to show that the capitalization of Western competitors is more related to stock speculation than to real financing needs. They are true incubators of billionaires. The value of shares listed on the NASDAQ in New York or on certain European stock exchanges has much more to do with capitalist greed than with the scientific and business costs of large technology corporations based in California and one or another European location.

This observation regarding costs brings to mind what comes to us from Ukraine: the country's armed forces are using AI on a large scale, transforming classic equipment into digitally operated weapons. They are thus able, with modest expenditure, to go far and strike hard, almost compensating for their lack of weapons when faced with a much more powerful aggressor, and thus obtain unbelievable results. For the avoidance of doubt, I will immediately add that Ukraine is doing what it can with domestic science, but it continues to urgently need massive assistance in terms of air defense, artillery, ammunition, missiles and aircraft, and much more material available in the Western countries, but delivered with a half-closed hand and a short and timid arm, so as not to irritate excessively the delinquent who lives in the Kremlin.

The second message we get from China is that the country is much more advanced in terms of AI than Americans and Europeans think. American supremacy shook a lot this week. We do not have concrete data on this subject, but we already know two things: on the one hand, that Beijing considers the issue a top priority; and that President Xi Jinping argues that whoever wins the digital race will be the strongest global power in the future. This is one of the reasons why he is betting on the forced annexation of Taiwan, a territory that has a cutting-edge industry in terms of the production of nanochips, which are essential for top AI performance. The other reason for Beijing's high interest in Taiwan stems from a mix of ultranationalism and imperial, geopolitical ambition. Xi is fortunate that President Donald Trump confused, as happened this week in one of his verbal slips, Taiwan as an extension of the People's Republic of China. The same Trump who also seems unaware that Taiwan has around 65 billion dollars invested in the US in the area of ​​cyber technologies.

And so we entered the second week of the Trump administration. In addition to the flood of measures he set in motion, the carriage's progress confirms what was already feared.

Domestically, his first executive orders are potentially disastrous for the country's economy and social stability. They will accentuate internal fractures and could provoke serious political unrest.

On the international scene, it can be predicted that we will see the collapse of the multilateral system. WHO appeared as a first target, for reasons of competition with China, and for no other reason. China could be, and most likely will be, the main beneficiary of the Trump Administration's fury against UN organizations. NATO itself could also be the target of this furor against the international system. It will not be destroyed by Trump's wrath, but it could face moments of great turbulence in the face of the impositions and contradictions invented in Washington.

Still on the subject of foreign policy, Trump will limit himself to dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, both wanted by international justice, with Xi Jinping and with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, an expert in the dismemberment of journalists. And perhaps also with the exotic, crazy and murderous Kim Jong-un. Netanyahu will be in Washington next week as the first official guest. As for Europe, Trump will want to see on the map not a European Union or valuable allies, but a scattering of countries that he thinks have already passed into history.

Trump, Davos and a changing world

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/trump-davos-e-o-mundo-real

Trump, Davos and the Real World

Victor Angelo

Much of political activity is spectacle, and the best charlatans often win the most coveted prizes. This was a week rich in such matters.

It started with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the avalanche of measures he immediately took. As the days went by, they filled the most visible space in the media. The repercussions of his election were a recurring theme, both in the press and in the most varied political meetings. On Tuesday, there was even room for a long audiovisual performance between the presidents of the Russian Federation and China. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping wanted to remind everyone that they have a special relationship, when it comes to competition with the US.

It was, however, an ambiguous message. Trump had invited the Chinese leader to the inauguration ceremony, thus showing who weighs on his international agenda, in addition to half a dozen crazy extremists or close friends of his current pet squire and sidekick, Elon Musk. On the other hand, during the week and without much commitment, in a sort of aside, Trump criticized Putin for not being interested in opening a peace process with Ukraine.

Trump is particularly interested in the relationship with China, considering it the real rival of the US. And he sees the competition as a question of economics and political influence, of world leadership, and not so much as a question of defense, as he does not believe that Beijing will one day be able to surpass American military power. Careful observation of certain indicators leads me to conclude this, as well as that his objectives include undermining the alliance between Putin and Xi and preventing the formation of a hostile pact in the Global South. In fact, one of the threats he made in recent days was against the BRICS. It seems clear that he will do everything to prevent such an understanding, that type of organisation.

His inaugural address can also be seen as a particularly important message for Xi: if China were to take military action against Taiwan, the current administration in Washington could view such aggression as none of its business, just as a Chinese internal affair, and therefore would not intervene. Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of engaging in any wars other than those directly directed against American interests. The Taiwan question, in the American president's mercantilist philosophy, does not present the same dangers that possible attacks against Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Southeast Asia or certain islands in the Western Pacific would represent.

In citing the Asian priority, Trump and those in his orbit seem to have those countries in mind above all, as well as freedom of navigation in the seas surrounding China and in the Indian Ocean. In one case, to hinder Chinese expansion and gain access to waters close to North Korea. In another, because the Indian Ocean allows the US Navy to easily target the Middle East and Iran. The concentration of a significant maritime force in the Indian Ocean and the vast presence in the Diego Garcia atoll allow the US to be present in the region that can seriously threaten Israel and defend the production and trade of oil and gas from countries that are fundamental to the stability of the Middle East. East, without the Americans needing to have troops on the ground.

India's stability is an equally paramount factor. Trump seems to be paying no attention to this evidence. Many of those in Davos for the annual meeting of the Economic Forum, the other major political event of the week, felt that India is increasingly becoming one of the world's major economic players. It does not have, nor will it have in the coming years, the necessary capacity to be a serious rival to China or the USA, as it lacks national unity and a strong central power, but it does have the ingenuity, the creative ability, the population size, a diaspora of scientists and a geographic location that work strongly in its favor. The European Union should pay special attention to its relationship with India. For all these reasons and also to reduce the relative weight of the US and China in the European economy and international alliances.

Interestingly, in the same week in Davos we had the great annual mass celebrating multilateralism and globalization, and in Washington, the solemn enthronement of its opposite. Davos returned to focus on major global issues and the need for international cooperation. Although in most cases it is just an opportunity for good conversations and to renew contacts, drink champagne and taste caviar, this year it had the merit of highlighting that there is more to the world beyond the megalomania of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other multibillionaire limpets.

Asking a few questions

A very unusual year: where are we heading to?

Victor Angelo

 

The Russian Armed Forces are currently firing thousands of shells a day at Ukraine. My friend Zulmiro, who is, and always has been, a primary communist militant, is not bothered by this volume of daily destruction. For him, every Ukrainian is a Nazi. Although he cannot explain the concept of Nazism in the year 2022, the accusation, imprecise as it is, justifies everything and tidies up the matter. It is impossible to argue with him, despite many decades of friendship. In view of this, and moving to a more general level, I ask how it will be possible to launch a process of negotiations between the Ukrainian leadership and Zulmiro's idols in the Holy of Holies, the Kremlin? That is one of the big questions of the moment. There is talk of diplomacy, but that, what does it mean?

Meanwhile, the Russian gamble continues to be on force, terror, and violation of the international order. Vladimir Putin and his men want the annihilation of the Ukrainian state and the surrender of its leaders. To achieve this, they will continue to machine gun and wipe out Ukraine. Systematically and intensely, with total inhumanity and a great sense of urgency, to weaken the Ukrainians' capacity for resistance and legitimate defence to the utmost before the promised arms arrive from Western countries.

Many do not want to look seriously at the question of self-defence, preferring, on our side, the comfortable ambiguity proper to nations well established in life. On the one hand, we help the victim and, on the other, we try not to harass the aggressor beyond the limits that could jeopardise our peace of mind. We keep repeating that we are not at war with the Putin regime, a half-truth which certainly makes him laugh with irony. He is at war with us, and he knows that the wars of today can be fought with missiles and cannons, as in the case of Ukraine, or with power cuts, cyber sabotage, disinformation, financing of extremist groups, and much more.

Self-defence raises a strategic question: either we ally ourselves with the aggressed, the weaker, or tomorrow it will be our turn. We may be on the verge of the decisive moment: to support with a new kind of intensity or just with minimal costs?

Looking further ahead, I would say that it has been decades since the international situation reached such a dangerous point as now. On top of a pandemic that has paralysed the world, we now have a combination of very serious conflicts and tensions. In Ukraine, Yemen, around Iran, in and around Burkina Faso, Libya, Myanmar, in addition to the never-ending crises in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Congo (DRC) and others.

In the most developed countries, people are coming out of the peak of the health crisis with a very acute consumerist fever. The issue of global warming, and the accelerated destruction of nature, has disappeared from the radar of citizens and the speeches of politicians. Even Greta Thunberg, who had mobilised global attention in the period before the pandemic, can not make herself heard.

Then came war, thanks to the imperialist and dictatorial madness of Vladimir Putin. I am sorry to say to the analysts who talk about these things that this is not a geostrategic issue. Putin wants to be the Tsar Peter the Great of our times, when he may end up being seen as the little Hitler of 2022.

Meanwhile, the tension between the US and China has entered a far more dangerous phase. And the impoverishment of the most vulnerable countries, something that has disappeared from the fat print of newspapers, is accelerating. In Sri Lanka, the Sahel countries, Central America, Haiti, and Pakistan, to name but a few. And the economies of the richest nations are increasingly living off the debt of future generations, amidst inflation that shows the mismatches between production, imports, and consumption patterns. Meanwhile, multilateral organisations continue to lose strength and image.

We are at a crossroads of critical uncertainties and serious risks. Where are we heading to? And where are the visionary leaders capable of proposing common-sense paths?

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 June 2022)

 

China's responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council

Ukraine: what are China's responsibilities as a P5?

Victor Angelo

 

Earlier this week, Olaf Scholz met by videoconference with Xi Jinping. A day later, it was Emmanuel Macron's turn. I imagine there was a prior settling of positions between the two European leaders, even though the face-to-face meeting between the two only took place a few hours after the German chancellor's virtual meeting with the Chinese president. Xi Jinping is convinced that strengthening European unity will eventually allow Europe to gain greater autonomy in relation to the USA. That is why he must have compared the statements made by Scholz and Macron to see if they are along the same lines.

The big issue, in an extensive agenda of issues to be dealt with between China and Europe, is that of the war in Ukraine. During the calls, Xi repeated phrases he had uttered before - Europe's security must be in the hands of Europeans; it is fundamental to build a new security structure in Europe that takes into account the concerns of all parties; China has acted diplomatically for peace to return to Ukraine, starting by insisting on a ceasefire and respect for the country's territorial integrity; it continues to promote multilateral solutions, because it recognises the central role of the UN; and, finally, China defends the globalisation of markets. At the outset, these declarations are positive. But what do they mean in concrete terms, when it comes to putting an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine and stopping the risks of the conflict spreading?

Scholz, Macron and the entire European leadership must go further and unambiguously confront Xi Jinping: what does China intend to do to contribute with all its political and economic weight to making Vladimir Putin's Russia cease hostilities and respect the sovereignty of its neighbour? The videoconferences need to be more demanding and explore what the grand declarations of principles mean in practice. The gravity of the international situation requires a dialogue that goes beyond make-believe.

China, beyond its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a global power, however much that pains some Western leaders. Both realities, in New York and around the world, give China rights and responsibilities. And in the case of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, China has a duty to actively contribute to the return of peace and international law. It cannot use the argument that this is only a European problem and that it is therefore up to the Europeans to solve it. Nor should we insist on this line of argument.

What we are facing is a conflict that could dramatically threaten international peace and security, particularly if non-conventional weapons are used. And which already has a widespread impact on food security, supply chains, energy prices and other dimensions that lead to the impoverishment of millions, and even more so in the most economically fragile countries.

In essence, my message is that Europe needs to talk more assertively with China. Xi says it is for peace and international order, for the centrality of the United Nations. So, ask him how he translates those admirable axioms into a peace process for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the annual summit between the EU and Japan took place yesterday in Tokyo. Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen led the European delegation. They began by pointing out that Japan is Europe's most important strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region, which must have attracted some attention in Beijing. The intensification of sanctions against Russia was one of the central themes of the discussion. There is a convergence of views between Brussels and Tokyo on the issue. But here too it would have been strategic to discuss how to involve China. This is now one of the big questions. It is not enough to write in the final communiqué that the EU and Japan will "deepen exchanges with China", namely in the political and security fields. That is mere lip service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 13 May 2022)