Thoughts and paths: a wider view of some geopolitic dimensions

Victor Angelo's public interventions address the intricate and rapidly evolving landscape of global geopolitics, underscoring the imperative for enhanced, authoritative, international mechanisms to manage crises rooted in human security, justice, and democracy. His views try to elucidate the transformation of conflict dynamics post-Cold War and the paramount importance of key values --cooperation, trust, dignity and human rights -- in global affairs.

Global Challenges Surpassing Responses: The swift and complex changes in geopolitics have created a disparity between global challenges and the capacity of existing international mechanisms to address them effectively. Leadership's Impact on Crises: Ethical and competent leadership is essential for peace and stability, with leaders acting as agents of change or contributors to conflict, highlighting the need for principled diplomacy that balances national interests and universal values. 

Centrality of Human Security: Human security, which integrates national protection with human rights, democracy, and economic opportunities, emphasizes empowerment and civic participation in crisis contexts.

Shift from State-Centric to Individual Focus: Post-Cold War conflicts have transitioned from interstate to internal, with individuals becoming central to international affairs paradigms. However, we are witnessing at the same time a return to interstate conflicts. This time they combine classical means of war with hybrid, digitally based attacks and sanctions of different nature.

Role of Civil Society in Peacebuilding: Civil Society Organizations and community groups have become indispensable partners in conflict resolution, although international bodies continue to struggle with effectively engaging local and traditional authorities. Good Governance and State Fragility: Good governance, encompassing accountability, human rights, and political pluralism, as well as social progress and full respect for the nature, is crucial to preventing crises; failing states lose control of core key sovereignty functions, thereby risking instability and conflict. For the first time since 1945, developed states are also entering in a political and social downwards spiral.

United Nations' Pivotal Role: Despite criticisms, the United Nations remains the central institution for legitimizing and managing peace and security efforts, with the Security Council supposed to play a key role through resolutions and mandates. Challenges in Peacekeeping Mandates: Security Council mandates are often broad and challenging to implement, with issues such as host nation consent and mission coherence complicating peacekeeping effectiveness. Complexity of Modern Conflicts: Contemporary conflicts are asymmetric and multifaceted, necessitating coordinated multidimensional responses that consider political, military, and economic factors, including the economic drivers of conflict.

Reflecting about the New Global Order: moving fast and full of complexities

 

A World of Converging Uncertainties: An Analysis of the Post-Cold War Global Order

Executive Summary

Victor Ângelo's texts and public interventions are based on a compelling synthesis of the major trends shaping the contemporary global landscape. Its central thesis posits that the international system is at a critical inflection point, moving beyond the post-Cold War era of cooperation into a new, more fragmented, and perilous phase. This transition is defined by the convergence of three primary trends: the resurgence of great power competition, driven by the erosion of traditional strategic safeguards and the emergence of new geopolitical theaters; a profound crisis of multilateralism, as international institutions struggle with financial shortfalls and a loss of consensus; and a fundamental shift in United States foreign policy toward a transactional, "America First" model. His analysises demonstrate that these elements are not isolated issues but are causally linked in a "polycrisis" where a breakdown in one area exacerbates vulnerabilities in others. It is his view that the world is now navigating a complex and uncertain period where old frameworks are no longer sufficient to understand, lead and manage new, multifaceted challenges.

1. The Resurgence of Geopolitical Competition

The defining feature of the present global order is the return of great power rivalry, both through traditional means and by making use of the rapidly evolving digital instruments. This dynamic is manifesting not only in the breakdown of long-standing agreements but also in the militarization of new strategic regions and the employment of new forms of diplomacy that bypass traditional norms. The use of A.I. reinforces the race and creates a narrative that is most disturbing. 

1.1 The Erosion of Strategic Stability and Arms Control

The post-Cold War era saw a concerted effort to build a web of arms control treaties aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear conflict. Today, this system is in a state of selective decay, creating new risks and highlighting a shift in strategic priorities.

The precarious status of the New START Treaty is a central element of this instability. Officially known as the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, New START is currently the only major remaining arms control agreement between the two nations. The treaty places verifiable limits on strategic offensive weapons, including deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. Both sides are obligated to remain at or below specific aggregate limits: 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles, 1,550 nuclear warheads, and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This treaty is particularly important as it constrains the development of new Russian long-range nuclear weapons like the Avangard and Sarmat that are capable of reaching the U.S. homeland.

The treaty's verification and transparency measures are critical for U.S. national security. These provisions include up to 18 on-site inspections per year, biannual data exchanges, and regular notifications on strategic exercises and new weapon systems. These measures provide a vital window into Russian intercontinental-range nuclear forces and operations, giving the U.S. crucial intelligence that would otherwise be unavailable. Without them, U.S. knowledge and confidence in its assessments of Russia's nuclear forces would decrease, complicating decisions about its own force structure. The treaty was initially in force for 10 years and was extended through February 4, 2026. The maintenance of this treaty, despite a deeply adversarial relationship, suggests that its verifiable limits on the most direct and existential threats are considered too important to abandon.

In stark contrast, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has completely dissolved, a development that signifies a new, more confrontational era of open rearmament. Signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the INF Treaty banned all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. It was hailed as a major arms control achievement that ended a dangerous chapter of the Cold War and served as a crucial "firebreak" against escalation. The treaty's collapse began when the U.S. formally withdrew in 2019 under President Donald Trump, citing Russia's violation of the terms by developing and deploying the 9M729 (SSC-8) missile system. Russia, for its part, officially abandoned its self-imposed moratorium on the treaty in the wake of deploying the Oreshnik missile, a weapon with a range that violates the defunct treaty, and after nuclear threats were issued by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. This breakdown has led to a reciprocal military buildup. The U.S. plans "episodic deployments" of intermediate-range missiles to Germany and has already deployed Typhon missile launchers in the Philippines, while Russia has confirmed the deployment of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile to Belarus, which borders three NATO members.

The divergent fates of these two treaties illuminate a fundamental shift in strategic logic. While New START, with its focus on verifiable limitations of intercontinental threats to the U.S. homeland, remains in force, the INF, with its broader scope and perceived vulnerabilities, has been discarded. The dissolution of the INF Treaty has been accompanied by a dangerous escalation in nuclear rhetoric from both sides, increasing the risk of miscalculation in an era with fewer safeguards. This rearmament and the increasingly adversarial posture reflect a strategic worldview articulated by Vladimir Putin, whose foreign policy has long been aimed at bolstering Russia's status as a world player and countering what he perceives as Western dominance. This situation is often referred to as a "Cold War II," where renewed competition is once again the defining feature of great power relations.

1.2 The Arctic as a New Front

The Arctic, once envisioned as a zone of peace and cooperation, is rapidly transforming into a new theater for strategic competition. This shift is driven by the interconnected forces of climate change, vast economic potential, and a history of military importance.

The primary catalyst for this transformation is climate change. The Arctic, previously covered in permanent pack ice, is becoming far more accessible, making fabled sea routes—such as the North Sea Route and the Northwest Passage—a realistic prospect for global shipping. These routes could reduce transit times by as much as a third, opening up new avenues for commerce. The region also holds significant economic riches, with estimates of approximately $1 trillion in minerals, 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas reserves, and 13% of its undiscovered oil.

The region's historical importance as a Cold War theater for intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers is now being revisited in a new context of strategic competition. Today, the Arctic is a territory for competition among Russia, the United States, and China, serving as a "critical ancillary theater that enables strategic outcomes elsewhere". Russia holds a significant military advantage in the region, having modernized its Arctic military bases, deployed defense missiles, and upgraded its submarine fleet over the past decade. Russia and China combined operate around 45 icebreakers, a stark contrast to the United States, which faces a significant "icebreaker gap" with only two aging icebreakers and one commercially procured vessel in its fleet.

The United States Air Force Arctic Strategy acknowledges that the region’s capacity as a strategic buffer is eroding, which has a direct effect on global military strategy. By securing NATO's northern flank and limiting Russian naval operations in the Arctic, the U.S. can reduce the risk of a two-front maritime conflict, thereby freeing up forces to maintain pressure on China in the Indo-Pacific region. This demonstrates a clear and interconnected strategic link between events in the Arctic and the broader competition in the Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, the breakdown of cooperation between Russia and the seven other Arctic states within the Arctic Council has prompted Russia to pivot eastward, doubling down on collaboration with non-Arctic strategic competitors like China. This strategic realignment is a direct consequence of Western sanctions and diplomatic isolation, showing that Russia is adapting by seeking new partners for technology and investment from nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

1.3 The Trump-Putin Summit in Alaska: An Exercise in Transactional Diplomacy

The recent summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska is a central feature of the new, uncertain international environment. This event is a defining moment for the Trump administration's foreign policy and a significant test of the established international order.

The summit took place on August 15, 2025, in Alaska, with the primary objective of negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine. The meeting was set against a backdrop of deeply conflicting peace proposals. Russia has reportedly floated a ceasefire plan that would involve Ukraine ceding significant territory in the Donbas region—Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—in exchange for an end to the fighting and U.S. assistance in securing international recognition of these annexations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, has consistently rejected any territorial concessions, and the Ukrainian constitution requires a national referendum for any territorial changes.

By meeting directly with Putin and sidelining European nations and Ukraine, the U.S. implicitly validated Russia's strategy of bypassing established international norms and alliances. This approach creates a precedent for resolving international disputes through coercion rather than consensus. The exclusion of Ukraine is not merely a diplomatic snub; it is a core element of Putin’s strategy to secure a deal with Trump that can be presented to Kyiv and other European capitals as a fait accompli.

The choice of Alaska as the venue carries its own symbolic and strategic significance. Some voices in Russia view it as a reminder of "annexed Russian land" and a symbol of a trade relationship Moscow hopes to revive with Washington. It is also seen as a practical arena for cooperation on future economic ventures in the Arctic, a region where the economic interests of both countries intersect. Both leaders are entering the talks under significant domestic pressure. For Trump, the aim was to bolster his image as a global leader. For Putin, the war has created mounting economic challenges as a result of the sanctions. 

1.4 The A.I. as a critical instrument in the superpower competition

AI is not just a technology—it is an economic multiplier. Nations that effectively integrate AI into their economies gain advantages in productivity, innovation, and global influence. The race for AI supremacy is, therefore, a race for future economic leadership, with profound implications for global trade, employment, and national power.

The competition in artificial intelligence (AI) between the United States and China is widely viewed as a critical component of their broader geopolitical rivalry. This contest is seen as an international struggle for power that will significantly shape global power dynamics in the coming decades . The race for AI dominance is often framed as a direct competition between these two superpowers, which some believe will define the future of global power . This technological race intersects with geopolitics, inevitably contributing to future conflicts. .

Copy

Ask

Explain

Russia and the rest

Five theses around the crisis with Russia

Victor Angelo

 

1. It is not acceptable to make political gains based on violating international law. Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime have attacked the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine by starting a war, in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, they have no authority to impose conditions on the country that is the victim of this violence. In today's world, force cannot be a source of rights. Therefore, following the condemnation by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 March, the immediate withdrawal of invading troops from all Ukrainian territory must be demanded. And to insist on this, even when recognising the reality on the ground and the need to negotiate with the invaders. I should add, given the seriousness of the aggression and the possibility of future threats, that the best solution for guaranteeing peace, now and in the future, involves the political defeat of Putin. Here, sanctions count for a lot. They must be as focused on political impact as possible. The EU cannot continue to transfer nearly 700 million euros to Russia every day in payment for gas and oil imports. European leaders must be able to explain to their fellow citizens that tomorrow's peace and tranquillity require sacrifices in the present.  

2. The protection of civilian populations in a situation of armed conflict is an absolute priority. International humanitarian and human rights rules, generally referred to as the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, are clear: all parties have an unconditional duty to safeguard the integrity of civilian populations and property. This includes hospitals, humanitarian convoys, cultural assets, and residential areas. The first guarantor of this duty is the UN Security Council. In the specific case of Ukraine, a draft resolution on this matter, proposed by a member other than Russia, should be put to a vote in the Council. It is obvious that Russia would use its veto. But the draft would also have the merit of putting pressure on China.

3. No-fly zone: the imposition of a no-fly zone contributes effectively to the protection of civilians. Under normal conditions, a decision of this kind should be taken by the Security Council, as part of the motion on the security of populations. If it is decided by a coalition of states alone, outside the Council, it will always be seen as a declaration of war by the country targeted by the ban. Thus, if the decision were to come from NATO, we would immediately enter into a direct conflict between our side and the Russian side. That is why NATO decided to respond with a categorical no to this request, made insistently by President Zelensky and repeated daily by some European political personalities, who seem to ignore the consequences of the issue. It is true that a small group of countries could declare, without going through NATO, the exclusion from Ukrainian airspace. But this is not a viable option. 

4. China must get out of its ambiguity and false neutrality and translate its grand declarations of principles into action. Communication with the Chinese leadership must be maintained. The US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, had a long meeting in Rome with the Chinese top foreign affairs official, Yang Jiechi. There was much disagreement, but both sides recognised the importance of keeping the lines of contact open. Europe's leaders should do likewise and be in continuous liaison with President Xi Jinping. The alliance between Xi and Putin must be weakened. This is possible. It is essential to strike a very sensitive chord in China, that of territorial integrity and respect for the sovereignty of each State. And to insist on the defence of multilateral institutions, an area where China wants to be a champion, at a time when the Kremlin is undermining the credibility of the UN. But, above all, it would be a question of combating the idea that prevails today in Beijing and which believes that the defeat of Putin would weaken Xi's power, in the year in which the 20th congress of the Chinese Communist Party is being prepared. Rather, it must be shown that Putin's continuation damages the international image of his main ally and adversely affects the economic prosperity of all. China holds one of the keys to solving the Russian crisis.

5. The geostrategic paradigm has changed. It is no longer relevant to look at international relations on the basis of the framework of analysis constructed in the last thirty years, in the period following the Cold War. Geostrategy now has a strong human dimension. It is no longer just about defending the state, the regime and securing zones of influence. People, their individual and collective security, their physical and spiritual integrity, have become part of the equation. Alliances between states must be based on ethical principles and values that respect citizens and allow them to be free and to live in peace, without fear or blackmail of war, and without hypocrisy.

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

 

Nagorno-Karabakh

I feel so disturbed when I watch the images of the war that keeps going on between Azerbaijan and Armenia. One of the sides publishes a lot of videos showing the targeting of the other side’s military vehicles. Often, we can see the young soldiers trying to move out of the vehicle before the strike. They rarely succeed. It is too late to escape. And that is no video game. It is about young lives being wasted. Then, there are the bombings of civilian quarters. TV screens remind us that wars are full of human tragedies.

And in this case, there seems to be no serious attempt to stop the conflict. The Russians managed to have a humanitarian ceasefire declared only to be broken soon after. It would have been important if respected. It could open the door to the beginning of a political process. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

At the beginning I expressed the view that this would be a short duration flare up. Now, I think we are in it for a long while. More lives and livelihoods will be destroyed. The world is too busy with the pandemic, the economic crisis, the competition with China and the American elections to really care about a remote corner of the world that most people have no idea where to place in the world map.

It is sad. 

The growing conflict between the giants

The US Government’s decision regarding the Chinese Consulate in Houston, Texas, takes the tensions between the two superpowers to a higher level of danger. The US is militantly engaged in a campaign against the Chinese leadership. And the Chinese have now decided to respond in kind. This confrontation is certainly not good. It contributes in no small measure to increase international instability at a time of great uncertainties. I see this course of action with great concern. And my advice to the European leaders is quite simple: keep as far away as possible from this confrontation. Say no to the pressure coming from Washington and keep a strong stance as far as China is concerned. Both sides must understand that Europeans cannot be drawn into this very dangerous competition. Actually, we must state that we see international cooperation and full respect for each nation as the key ingredients to build a more stable and prosperous future for all. If we cooperate, we win. If we show disrespect for international norms, we open the door to defeat and disaster.

We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

Srebrenica

Srebrenica. The massacre happened 25 years ago. In Srebrenica, in Europe. About 8,000 victims, just because they were a bit different, a religion-based difference. And today, after so many years, the reconciliation and the cooperation between the Balkan States are still distant dreams. Dreams that the political leaders do not share. The region remains a powder keg within the European Continent.

It is a sad and dangerous situation.  

The EU's position on Iranian matters

As I express my disagreement and concern regarding the decision to execute General Qassem Soleimani, I must also recognise that the regime he spent his life fighting for is an aberration in today’s world.

I acknowledge the rights of the Iranian people to decide about their government and its politics. The problem is that their leaders do not give the people the freedom to choose. The leaders have imposed on the population a religion-based dictatorship, that has all the features of a medieval type of life. The country has become hell on earth, in the name of God. That is unacceptable, in Iran, as well as in the neighbouring countries or anywhere else in the world. And that must be denounced in all kinds of forums. The condemnation is not about religion, it is about making use of religious beliefs to impose a totalitarian regime on people.  

The European approach to such countries must combine pressure on human rights and democratic values with economic restrictions. In addition, it must include serious security measures to avoid those countries’ hostile actions, including the promotion they could make of all kinds of radicalism and religious fanaticism. Our policy must be a delicate mix of firmness, encouragement, dialogue, distance and prudence. In the end, it is about sticks and carrots, but certainly not about drones and bombs. It should also be about helping other countries that want to move away from the influence of those theocratic dictatorships.

This approach is certainly very different from the one President Trump is pursuing. That’s our right and nobody in Washington can challenge it. Secretary Pompeo’s remarks about the role of EU countries – he basically said that key European States have not been supportive enough of the American action – are not welcome. Here, as in other occasions, it is our duty to be clear about our policies towards a very explosive and complex area of the globe. And our policies are not subordinated to the views in Washington, or elsewhere outside the EU.