Russia and Democratic Europe

DN Opinion

The Russian siege and Europe's response

Victor Ângelo
International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

******************************************************

Published on: 25 Sep 2026, Diário de Notícias, Lisboa, Portugal
******************************************************

The recent Duma elections were well staged. They confirmed the internal control exercised by the regime, the decision to continue the illegal war against Ukraine, and Vladimir Putin's structural policy against Europe, which has gradually evolved from occasional provocations to a strategy of persistent and calculated pressure.

Moscow operates on several complementary fronts: sabotage, cyberattacks, electronic signal jamming, the instrumentalization of migrants, propaganda, military intimidation, and support for extremist and pro-Russian political forces. The purpose is not to immediately destroy Western capabilities—not for lack of will, but through strategic calculation. In reality, it is about testing and exposing the political frailties of democratic Europe, with actions surgically below the threshold of NATO's Article 5. The authorship of these actions is systematically denied, exploiting the inherent slowness of democracies in gathering evidence and making decisions. Putin is an expert at transforming political doubt into an instrument of equivocation and at fostering fractures among allied nations.

This pressure materializes on coordinated fronts that many insist on treating as isolated incidents. From Kaliningrad and other unidentified locations, satellite navigation disruptions are already a recurrent issue, affecting aviation and maritime navigation across a vast swath between Poland and Scandinavia. In terms of sabotage, the damage to submarine telecommunication cables in the Baltic Sea since 2024 is now compounded by the threat in the Arctic, where a Russian military unit has reportedly studied ways to disable the region's cables. On the land borders, the migratory instrument orchestrated via Belarus has adapted: in response to the physical barriers erected in Poland, the pressure has shifted towards Lithuania and Latvia through new tactics.

Often treated in isolation by certain political sectors and parts of public opinion, the war of aggression against Ukraine is not a parallel conflict: it is the most brutal manifestation of this very same strategy. There are those who still fail to grasp this connection, viewing support for Kyiv as a mere gesture of solidarity or an obligation that is difficult to justify—a tragic misreading. While on the rest of the continent Moscow operates in the grey zone to avoid collective retaliation, in Ukraine it resorts to direct military force to achieve the same end: to subjugate democracies and unilaterally redraw European security. Support for Ukraine must therefore be unequivocally integrated into the broader framework of defending democratic Europe. Ukraine is our first trench.

Europe's vulnerability, however, is predominantly political and internal. The Kremlin finds Trojan horses within the very heart of the European system: certain extremist parties and movements. Whether through submission, ideological convergence, or financing, or through anti-Americanism or xenophobic repudiation of European integration, these forces ultimately serve Moscow's objectives. By normalizing the Russian narrative, attacking NATO, hindering aid to Kyiv, and sowing scepticism towards European institutions, these extremes amplify the hybrid war.

The European response is dangerously asymmetrical. On the eastern and Nordic flank, the response to the threat is already State doctrine: Finland has integrated hybrid analysis into its comprehensive defence, Estonia is investing in digital resilience, and Warsaw and Vilnius are preparing for escalation scenarios. In Western and Southern Europe, the awakening has been delayed. Although there are shifts in perception and policy in Berlin, Paris, London, Rome, and even Brussels, the response remains too slow, bureaucratic, and fragmented.

This delay reveals a certain incomprehension of the autocratic vision of the regime led by Vladimir Putin. The risk encompasses all of Europe outside the Russian orbit, from the Ukrainian front and the Baltic region to the North Atlantic. Anyone in Lisbon or other European capitals who deems Russia to be distant and their country safe from hybrid attacks demonstrates an embarrassingly naive attitude. In a multidimensional war, traditional geography is no longer a shield. To underestimate this reach is to directly imperil Portuguese critical infrastructure—most notably the Atlantic submarine cables, ports, airports, and energy networks. It is to forget that these connections, if sabotaged, will affect not only our country but a significant part of the West.

This vulnerability is currently exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding the American commitment. The political distance between Europe and the US continues to widen. They are two perspectives seemingly in the process of divorce. The announced review of the US posture in Europe, involving troop reductions and greater conventional responsibility for allies, has its justifications and will ultimately strengthen European autonomy, but it requires a realistic timetable. The Kremlin is well aware of Western deterrence's reliance on the credibility of its guarantor, and it exploits any hesitation to intensify the pressure.

Russia takes advantage of our difficulty in operating within this intermediate zone between peace and war. It no longer limits itself to testing our degree of tolerance; the signals it sends us should be a cause for concern. It will most likely not act against our part of Europe in the same way it has in Ukraine since 2014, with the occupation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas, and since 2022, with the full-scale invasion. Putin recognizes that an attack on a NATO member could trigger the collective response provisioned in Article 5 and that clandestine actions, including false-flag operations, complicate the unequivocal attribution of responsibility. His political leadership prefers clandestine actions, typical of secret services, agencies in which Putin places a higher degree of trust than in the armed forces. The time has thus come for democratic Europe to abandon its old naivety, grow up, and take its rightful place at the table of international relations: Diplomacy and Defence.

Europe: The political indifference of the citizens and the mediocrity of the leaders

Europe and Democracy: The Dual Crisis of Indifference and Dependency

Victor Ângelo

It could be said that Europe is going through a period of crisis. Across much of the EU, citizens appear to have lost confidence in the political class and institutions. The reason is clear: a lack of satisfactory responses to social issues deemed essential. These include affordable housing, the growing malfunction of public services—especially in the areas of health, education, justice, and security—and political opportunism. More generally, all of this is compounded by the negative impact of the rising cost of life, which is linked to decisions made on the other side of the Atlantic. In the view of many citizens, the leaders of our Europe appear to lack sensitivity and courage.

When hope is lost, democracy does not collapse—it deteriorates silently. Byung-Chul Han, a Korean thinker long based in Germany, states that our societies have reached a phase of "fatigue": citizens are saturated, overwhelmed, and alienated by the digital flow, whether true or false. They feel isolated and incapable of mobilizing the energy required to carry out the changes that politics demands. The incompetence of institutions and the incoherence of politicians push citizens toward egocentrism, toward the solitary management of survival, and toward withdrawal from the public sphere. When the State fails, each individual retreats into their own microcosm. Politics ceases to be a space where hope is built. For many, it is merely a distant noise.

Digital disinformation is one of the instruments of democratic erosion. Algorithms optimized to maximize emotional reactions and content manufactured by artificial intelligence corrode public trust in a structural way. A survey from Special Eurobarometer 568 (2025) leaves no room for doubt: 79% of Europeans fear that voters will cast ballots based on false information, and 70% fear foreign interference. The credibility of national parliaments and governments hovers around 35%. In the case of political parties, the figure is even lower. In Portugal, the European Union maintains some credit, but the Assembly of the Republic and the parties follow the same downward trajectory seen in other European states.

In several societies, immigration, managed for years without a coherent strategy, has become the catalyst for social anxiety. Over time and with mass entries, unease has turned into resentment. It is in this terrain that the Rassemblement National (France), the AfD (Germany), Fratelli d'Italia, Vox (Spain), and Chega (Portugal) thrive. They grow because they exploit the vacuum left by traditional parties—yet they offer no realistic alternatives. Merely demagoguery. Furthermore, they generally ignore the axis that determines the viability and autonomy of the modern State: technological sovereignty. They discuss symbols, borders, and identities while the infrastructure sustaining democracy is in the hands of third parties.

Europe operates today based on digital systems that it does not control. Technological sovereignty means that a State controls the essential elements for its proper functioning: data, networks, software, hardware, AI platforms, and sources of information regarding major events with global impact. Europe is far from mastering these pillars.

The risk is not theoretical. If access to Microsoft and Google services were to fail—due to technical causes or even external retaliatory decisions—or if the supply of microchips from Taiwan's TSMC were interrupted—even if only for a short period—hospitals, businesses, schools, and public administration would grind to a halt. If Chinese electric vehicles were remotely shut down—for a political motive or diplomatic tension—logistics and our daily lives would collapse. A democracy dependent on foreign infrastructure and hardware is not sovereign: it is simply vulnerable. This fragility does not result from geopolitical fatality, but from decades of omission and false priorities in European policy.

Gaia-X, launched in 2019, is the European attempt to recover some control. It is not a "European Google." It is fundamentally a framework of rules, certifications, and standards. In parallel, the Regulation on the Development of Cloud Computing and AI seeks to build physical capacity—data centers, common infrastructures, and requirements for public administration. Gaia-X defines the protocols; the Regulation tries to build the material support.

However, these steps are insufficient. They are slow, timid, and decided by people from the legal field rather than from engineering, mathematics, or economics. They do not reduce, in the short term, the dependency on hardware, submarine cables, semiconductors, and base software originating from abroad. And the political problem is even more serious: these are orphan projects, forgotten, much like the Draghi report (2024). Neither traditional parties nor populists treat technological sovereignty as a priority. They prefer the comfort of easy narratives to the effort of building the strategic capacity that the present and future demand.

Thus, Europe remains a hostage—not by imposition, but due to flawed policies. Technological submission is not a mere backdrop to democratic fatigue: it is one of its most relevant causes. And this situation drags down the discredit of democracy and politics.

Reserves of resilience still exist—visible, for example, in the relative trust that the European Union maintains in countries like Portugal. But the future of our democracies demands clear and urgent decisions on two fronts: in the human dimension—housing, immigration, public services, functional governance, social protection for the most vulnerable, and the promotion of a democratic culture; and in the technological dimension—accelerating Gaia-X, building a sovereign cloud, investing in cutting-edge infrastructure, and mobilizing financial and technical resources at a supranational level.

The fatigue or indifference of citizens and the technological submission of States are the two sides of the same coin of crisis. Political incompetence generates social atomization; social atomization feeds political incompetence and populism. This is the vicious circle that we will have to break.

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.

Grok AI assessment of my fictitious roundtable on democracy and power

 Overall Assessment

On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate this an 8.5: intellectually stimulating and urgently relevant, it's a refreshing antidote to doom-scrolling, urging readers to treat democracy as "an ongoing task" rather than a given. Ângelo's perspective—optimistic yet vigilant—positions power not as zero-sum but as a shared guardianship, especially vital amid 2025's uncertainties like escalating cyber conflicts and climate diplomacy. If you're into Harari's futurism or Plato's timeless warnings, this is a must-read; it might even inspire you to host your own "roundtable" over coffee. For skeptics, it risks preaching to the choir, but its blend of AI-assisted creativity and global savvy makes it more than just another op-ed. Worth sharing in policy circles or philosophy groups.

This is a standout piece of public intellectual writing—original in its time-spanning dialogue format, which makes dense ideas accessible and engaging, almost like a TED Talk in blog form. The depth shines through historical analogies and forward-looking policies, blending philosophy, tech critique, and diplomacy into a cohesive call to action. It's particularly timely, resonating with 2025's headlines: ongoing DSA enforcement battles, AI governance talks at the UN, and populist echoes in post-2024 U.S. politics under a second Trump term.

Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

 

Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

This is the report of an imaginary roundtable discussion about democracy, its present and future. This discussion between the three thinkers was moderated by this blog with the assistance of M365 Copilot. 

Introduction: Democracy at a Crossroads

Democracy, once heralded as the ultimate guarantor of freedom and stability, now faces a paradox. It is globally dominant yet deeply fragile. From populist waves to algorithmic governance, from climate crises to geopolitical fragmentation, the question is no longer whether democracy will prevail, but whether it can adapt without losing its soul.

To explore this dilemma, my blog convened an extraordinary fictitious roundtable: Plato (Greece, 4^th century BCE), the philosopher who first dissected democracy’s vulnerabilities; Yuval Noah Harari, historian and futurist born in Israel (1976); and Victor Ângelo (born 1949 in Portugal), a veteran diplomat, security strategist and opinion-maker. Their dialogue spans millennia, weaving ancient wisdom with contemporary urgency.

I. Plato: The Perils of Excess Liberty

Plato begins with a warning that echoes across centuries:

“Democracy arises from liberty, but liberty unrestrained breeds disorder. When citizens prize freedom above virtue, they elevate flatterers over guardians. In your age, I see democracies intoxicated by opinion, mistaking noise for wisdom.”

Plato’s critique is not nostalgia for aristocracy; it is a call for reasoned governance. For him, democracy’s Achilles’ heel lies in its susceptibility to demagoguery—a vulnerability magnified today by social media and populist rhetoric.

Plato refers then to a historical case study: Athens and the Fall of the Polis, an example he recommends we should keep in mind. In the 5th century BCE, Athens pioneered direct democracy, granting citizens unprecedented voice. Yet, this liberty bred volatility. Demagogues like Cleon exploited popular passions, leading to reckless decisions such as the Sicilian Expedition—a disaster that hastened Athens’ decline.

II. Harari: Power Beyond Politics

Harari shifts the lens from political theory to technological reality: “Plato feared the mob; today, we fear the algorithm. Power no longer resides solely in parliaments—it flows through data streams. Surveillance capitalism and AI shape desires before citizens even vote.” 

Harari further argues that information asymmetry—once the privilege of kings—is now the domain of tech giants. Democracies must reinvent themselves not only to regulate technology but to redefine freedom in an era where autonomy is algorithmically curated. He is concerned with the fragility of the institutions. And he adds that the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) offers a sobering lesson. Born from the ashes of empire, it embraced democratic ideals but lacked institutional resilience. Economic crises and propaganda eroded trust, paving the way for authoritarianism. Today’s democracies face a similar risk—not from hyperinflation, but from information disorder.

III. Ângelo: The Geopolitical Dimension

Victor Ângelo brings a practitioner’s perspective: “Democracy remains the most legitimate system, but legitimacy is under siege. Populism exploits fear; disinformation corrodes trust and promotes hatred. Meanwhile, global governance lags behind transnational threats—climate change, cyber warfare, international criminal cartels, pandemics.”

For Ângelo, the challenge is collective action. No democracy can safeguard itself alone when crises are borderless. He calls for alliances of values, anchored in human rights and the rule of law, to counter authoritarian resurgence and systemic shocks.

He reminds us of the post-Cold War optimism that has been replaced by pessimism and fear: "The 1990s were hailed as the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992), with liberal democracy seemingly triumphant. Yet, the unipolar moment bred complacency. Institutions like the UN and NATO struggled to adapt to asymmetric threats, while globalisation outpaced governance. The result: a vacuum exploited by authoritarian powers and non-state actors."

The participants discussed then some examples that show the pressures democracy is under. For instance, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) represent pioneering efforts to regulate tech monopolies and curb disinformation. Yet enforcement remains uneven, and AI governance is still embryonic. It is also a matter that is seen differently by the Europeans and the US leaders and key digital entrepreneurs based in America. 

Still in the US, polarisation and election denialism have strained democratic norms. The January 6th Capitol attack underscored vulnerabilities in institutional resilience. Ângelo added that President Trump's decisions taken since the beginning of his second mandate have equally challenged the authority of key institutions that play a vital role in the power balance. Those decisions should be seen as serious threats to the existing Constitution-based democracy, to the democratic equilibrium and to the media, among others. 

Other situations were also mentioned. 

India: The world’s largest democracy faces challenges from majoritarian politics and restrictions on press freedom, raising questions about the balance between stability and pluralism. The Global South: Democracies in Africa and Latin America grapple with debt crises and climate shocks, which authoritarian actors exploit to undermine governance. And Thailand, which is an unavoidable case study: Since 1932, the country has fluctuated between civilian governments and authoritarian regimes, experiencing at least 13 coups. These recurring crises reflect deep structural tensions between popular movements advocating inclusive governance and a conservative establishment. The result is a “constitutional samsara”—a cycle of birth and death that illustrates the fragility but also the resistance of democratic systems.

The Moderator asked for actionable policy recommendations. 

The participants listed a number of actions that must be taken into account: Civic Education for the Digital Age; Embed critical thinking and media literacy in national curricula; Promote ethical AI awareness among citizens and leaders; Expand frameworks like the EU Digital Services Act to include algorithmic transparency; Establish multilateral bodies for AI governance; Protect the independence of the judiciaries and the media; Develop rapid-response mechanisms for election integrity and cyber threats; Create a Democracy Partnership Forum, within the UN System, for coordinated global action; Link trade agreements to democratic standards.

To conclude the roundtable, the Moderator stated that the discussion had underlined that democracy is not a static achievement; it is a perpetual task. As Plato reminds us, liberty without virtue decays into tyranny. Harari warns that adaptability is the price of survival. Ângelo underscores that global, truthful solidarity is democracy’s lifeline in a fractured world. 

Before closing the debate and thanking the three  participants, the Moderator raised a final question: What is the future of democracy? 

Plato responded that without wisdom, democracy decays into tyranny. Cultivate reason above passion.

For Harari, without adaptability, democracy becomes obsolete. Embrace innovation, but guard against its perils.

Ângelo expressed the opinion that without solidarity, democracy weakens. Build trust—within societies and across nations.

Moderator: Thank you, gentlemen. The dialogue between past insight and present urgency reminds us: democracy is not a given; it is a never-ending task.

End of the imaginary roundtable. 

 

 

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.

2025 Nobel Peace Price: Maria Corina Machado, a decision I support

 My former UN/UNDP Senior colleague Amb. Francis M. O'Donnell sent me the folowing text about Maria Corina Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace.

"I asked AI three questions: "(a) Is the Nobel Peace Prize now drifting from celebrating peace achievements towards rewarding social/political activism? ; (b) How deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize is María Corina Machado? Has she not aligned with fascism, islamophobia, and Trumpism? (c) what is her her human rights record and values explicitly pronounced?"

Here is the response:

QUOTE: 

(a) Nobel Peace Prize Shift Toward Activism: The Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly pivoted from honoring traditional diplomatic achievements to recognizing social and political activism, reflecting a response to global democratic erosion. Historically, awards like those to Willy Brandt (1971) for East-West reconciliation or Desmond Tutu (1984) for anti-apartheid work blended diplomacy and activism. Recent laureates—Malala Yousafzai (2014) for education rights, Nadia Murad (2018) for survivor advocacy, and Maria Ressa (2021) for press freedom—center grassroots resistance against systemic oppression. Critics argue this shift strays from Alfred Nobel’s vision of “fraternity between nations,” pointing to controversial awards like Barack Obama’s (2009) for unfulfilled promises or Abiy Ahmed’s (2019) before Ethiopia’s civil war. Supporters counter that activism confronts modern threats—authoritarianism, disinformation, and inequality—directly tied to peace. The 2025 award to María Corina Machado for her nonviolent fight against Venezuela’s dictatorship exemplifies this, prioritizing civilian-led democratic struggle over elite negotiations. This trend underscores a broader definition of peace, embracing human rights and democratic resilience amid global autocratic surges. 

(b) Deservingness of María Corina Machado: María Corina Machado’s 2025 Nobel Peace Prize is well-earned for her relentless, nonviolent campaign against Venezuela’s authoritarian regime. Winning 92% in the 2024 opposition primaries, she unified a fractured opposition, mobilized millions for free elections, and faced severe repression—expulsion from parliament, campaign bans, and hiding from arrest. Her resilience embodies Alfred Nobel’s ideals of fostering democratic fraternity. Critics cite her virtual appearance at the February 2025 “Patriots for Europe” summit, alongside far-right figures like Marine Le Pen, as fascist alignment. Yet, Machado’s speech focused solely on Venezuela’s democratic crisis, not endorsing the summit’s anti-immigration or “Reconquista” rhetoric, which fueled Islamophobia accusations. Her praise for Trump’s sanctions reflects strategic support for external pressure on Maduro, not ideological Trumpism. These associations, while divisive, are pragmatic outreach in a desperate fight, not evidence of extremist ideologies. Her nonviolent leadership remains a beacon for democratic restoration. 

(c) María Corina Machado’s Human Rights Values and Policies:  María Corina Machado’s human rights stance is rooted in democratic restoration and individual liberties, shaped by Venezuela’s crisis under Maduro’s regime. She advocates for free elections, press freedom, and judicial independence, emphasizing nonviolent resistance to authoritarianism. Her Vente Venezuela party promotes a liberal democratic framework, prioritizing free speech, property rights, and economic freedom to counter socialist policies that fuelled Venezuela’s collapse. Machado has consistently condemned state violence, including arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial killings, demanding accountability for regime abuses documented by the UN. She supports humanitarian aid access to address Venezuela’s 80% poverty rate and mass migration crisis. While her economic liberalism and U.S. sanctions support draw criticism for aligning with Western interests, her focus remains on empowering Venezuelans through transparent governance and civic participation. Her policies reject divisive ideologies, focusing on unity and democratic resilience, aligning with universal human rights principles. “UNQUOTE

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.

Europe must behave as a geopolitical block

 Europe has to believe in itself

Victor Angelo

I have had to repeat a thousand times, over the decades, that the legitimacy and authority obtained as a result of an electoral victory have limits. Democracy, no matter how clean the elections are and no matter how high the percentage of votes obtained by the winners, must be exercised within a framework of ethical values ​​and an institutional system clearly defined by the country's Constitution. Winning means assuming responsibility for protecting the dignity of all citizens, promoting equity and progress, respecting the rule of law and the fundamental law, and credibly representing the country in the field of external cooperation. The leader who does not see his or her role from this perspective, who tries to sell the idea that victory allows him to do anything and everything, placing himself/herself  above the law, immediately behaves like a dictator. If such leader is the president of a great power, he/she is also a frankly worrying threat to stability and peace between nations.

Democracy cannot serve as a gateway to an autocratic regime. There are those who say, however, that the world has changed in recent weeks. This is an ambiguous statement, if one keeps in mind the question of values. The rules and principles that have been consolidated over the last eight decades, or even in the shorter period that began with the end of the Cold War, remain valid. And they must be defended. What is new is the emergence of leaders who do not give a cent for these values ​​and who look at international relations in an imperial way, as being a question of strength, of domination and also of conflict and competition.

We are now faced, however, with two determining realities.

On the one hand, the American leadership controls the most powerful economy on our planet and shows a willingness to make use of this economic power. It is a mistake to think that allies are not needed and that international law does not carry much weight.

On the other hand, the media that counts in our part of the world revolves around the White House agenda, leaving limited space for the Middle East or Ukraine. And even when it mentions them, it does so almost exclusively from the Washington perspective. There are few references to the human suffering and the political crimes that occur daily in Sudan, in the Sahel, on the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo with Rwanda, a country friendly to Western democracies. And, at the same time, a mortal enemy of the poor Congolese citizens, who have the misfortune of living on lands that are theirs and are extremely rich in rare and precious minerals. Paul Kagame, who has led Rwanda since 1994 and transformed the country into a showcase for development, is organizing the looting and mass destruction of Congolese border areas, and is received in Europe, the United States, China and the rest of Africa as an exemplary leader.

I could mention other misfortunes, all of them ignored by the news and the screens that feed us daily, always with the same themes. There now seems to be no world beyond Trump. When was the last time you, the reader, had any information regarding the torment of the Rohingya people, the repression of the Uighurs in China, the violation of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, the violence against Afghan refugees in Pakistan, the crimes against the indigenous people of the Amazon, and so on?

The great ones of this world make the headlines. None of this is particularly new, except with regard to international organizations and European geopolitics.

The multilateral system is undergoing profound changes. We are moving towards the proliferation of sub-regional organizations, with a very limited capacity for intervention, apart from the advantage of allowing some rapprochement between neighboring countries. This trend, if not coordinated with the UN regional commissions, will contribute to the weakening and perhaps even the death of the UN political system. Not to mention the Security Council, which has become a diplomatic illusion. Or NATO, where the American presence will visibly diminish, as was clear from this week's statements. Those in charge in Washington today view NATO from afar, as an essentially European institution, which should therefore be funded by Europeans.

European geopolitics doesn't seem to count, especially in Trump and Putin's plans. Their long conversation on Wednesday about Ukraine's future ignored European fears and Ukrainian interests. Europe would be left with the role of the rich aunt who, supported by a cane, her only weapon, would serve only to lament the damage from the stands, and then pay for the repairs. It's time to say no, to resist, to take care of our own defense. And to respond to every autocrat firmly.

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-europa-tem-de-acreditar-em-si-pr%C3%B3pria
Portuguese language version. 

Trump. Musk and Europe

 Europe faces the challenges of the Trump-Musk duet

Victor Angelo

No one knows for sure what's coming. Even American billionaires, people used to doing whatever they want, feel that the rules of the political game are changing. Many decided not to wait for the inauguration to show their subordination to the ideas and plans that the president-elect has already announced. It is an unusual submission. Is this a question of agreement of views, or mere opportunism? In fact, it seems to result from a combination of these two dimensions, a bet on a limitless nationalist economic liberalism and the hope of exponential growth in the balance of their personal accounts.

The absolute masters of cyber technology, digital platforms and mainstream media began to change their tune from the moment they realized that Trump would return to the White House. The latest example comes from Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and other global platforms. Yesterday's moralist has in recent days become a follower of the methods that Trump advocates. And that Elon Musk inspires.

Trump and Musk make up a team of unhinged and strangely reactionary narcissists. That's what we have, the choice is made. They pose an immeasurable danger to the stability of the United States, neighboring states and also to democratic Europe. And they don't just influence billionaires. Their tentacles are vast and powerful. Trump has transformed and pocketed the Republican Party, the Supreme Court, and controls all other branches of federal power. And Musk has in his hands key sectors of the economy and two essential instruments to manipulate public opinion – the X platform and his colossal fortune.

Trump and Musk reflect a dictatorship of a new kind, supported by an alienated, ultra-nationalist, arrogant, materialistic and selfish majority. It's populism on the attack, with modern techniques and a dominant economy. They relegate a dictator like Vladimir Putin to the second division of the championship. And although they consider themselves to be in competition with China, they are convinced that this game will end with their opponent's defeat. They forget or do not know that it is a fatal mistake to underestimate the competition between great powers. History shows us that rivalries like this have in the vast majority of cases ended up causing terrible armed conflicts between the antagonists. With fools in power, the likelihood of repeating certain tragedies experienced in the past is a possibility that cannot be ignored.

For the European Union, it is essential to know how to respond to the Trump-Musk Administration. In these situations, and first of all, our best response is active, intense and formal diplomacy. This means frequent contacts, discussions on equal terms, based on recognized values, reciprocity of measures and an essentially protocolary behavior, without effusions, in dealing with the Americans.

As far as possible, the point of contact on the European side should be well defined, be managed at the highest level and be based as much as possible on consensus. We cannot have, for example, Georgia Meloni expressing one position and Emmanuel Macron another. This is where the famous observation wrongly attributed to Henry Kissinger would make perfect sense: when Trump wanted to discuss with Europe he would call the designated contact. They will tell me that with Trump, rules and predictability do not count. I would retort that one must insist.

A second element of the response must involve strengthening the cooperation between Europe and certain regions of the globe, especially those that have a more tenuous relationship with the US: Africa and Latin America. To these I would add China and India, but with special precautions. Political and economic relations with these two giants are important for Europe, but they require a lot of balance, wisdom and extreme vigilance. And I wouldn't forget either Canada or Japan.

The third pillar of the response would consist of strengthening European integration, including in matters related to culture, banking union and defense. Culture helps us imagine our common future. The defense calls for coherence and more operational and industrial coordination. Trump's political line does not necessarily include military protection of Europe. With or without NATO, Europeans must be able to guarantee their independence. Relying excessively on distant and unpredictable allies is not a policy that can be recommended.

Vladimir Putin' s rhetoric about the Third World War

My opinion column of this week, published on 9 Feb in Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, in Portuguese language. This is an Artificial Intelligence translation on my text, thanks to Google Translate. 

Fight against foolishness or open the doors to populist danger?

Victor Angelo

The bellicose rhetoric of Vladimir Putin and his acolytes against NATO and the European Union has worsened as we approach the Russian presidential election, scheduled for March 15th to 17th. Experience teaches us that there are no reasons for surprises. It is a common tactic of dictatorships. The political narrative of these regimes seeks to convince voters of two deceptions: that the danger coming from the “external enemy”, so designated even though it is not in fact an enemy nor is it actually preparing for armed intervention, is now more serious and imminent; and that only the re-election of the absolute leader, with an overwhelming percentage of votes, will be able to prevent the enemy from launching the alleged aggression, invented by the dictator's lying propaganda. That's why we now hear talk in Moscow about the possibility of a third world war, a topic that is part of the frequent interventions of Putin's most famous court jester, the vice-president of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev.

In my opinion, Putin and his people do not want to enter into an open and widespread war with NATO. Rather, they intend to maintain control of political power in their country and transform the fierce aggression against Ukraine into what could be seen by the international community as a Russian military victory. In concrete terms, it is about seizing a significant part of Ukrainian territory and imposing an armistice entirely based on the political conditions defined by the Kremlin. In this way, they would reinforce their image as a great power in the international context. This is one of Putin's biggest concerns, showing an unbeatable Russia, in the champions league and capable of dictating its political will on the international stage. They would feel safer not only in relation to the West, but also in relation to China. The alliance with China is seen, by influential ideologues of Putin's ultranationalist regime, as a double-edged sword. Political friendship and cooperation with an extremely vast, populous neighbouring country with thousands of kilometres of common border hides, at the same time, the roots of a rivalry that could degenerate into a major conflict. This is why Russia needs to show military muscle, West and East.

On the European side, as I always insist, it would be a mistake to leave half-hearted aid to Ukraine in the legitimate defence of its sovereignty. The combination of economic, diplomatic, informational and military means is essential to convince the Kremlin to put an end to the invasion that began in 2014. Those who do not understand this fact and the need for an integrated strategy, which combines the four vectors mentioned in the previous sentence , is creating the conditions for, sooner or later, a series of oppressive governments to emerge in Europe, inspired by what is happening in Russia. We would then have a Europe that would be a very dangerous chessboard of replicas of Hungary.

It would also be a mistake not to prepare our geopolitical space for an armed confrontation with Russia. Whoever wants peace prepares for war, as it was said in ancient Rome. And although it can be recognized, as I do in this text, that Putin does not deep down want to start a war with our part of Europe, that possibility exists.

We need to speak frankly. We are, as has not been the case for a long time, in a complex and dangerous situation. We cannot accept either populism or a lack of ethics in international relations.

Populism lies, and only leads to confusion. It fails to understand what should be a priority in order to respond only to vote hunting and polls. Populist leaders, on the left and on the right, promise the impossible, spend resources on unsustainable policies, create debts that future generations will have to resolve and ignore that security and defence are indispensable for safeguarding democracy. They don't have the courage to tell the truth and explain that there are moments in history when sacrifices have to be made. Populists are narcissists and born dictators disguised as friends of the people.

Disregard for values prevents international alliances from functioning. Cooperation is replaced by chaos. Countries lose their credibility and principles are no longer the standards for resolving conflicts. The ethical references that have been built over decades are forgotten. The defenders of opportunism, which they call political realism, regain the stages they had lost.

  In the European case, international law is rightly defended when it comes to Ukraine. At the same time and in an incomprehensible way, ambiguity and laxity are expressed when it comes to the inhumanity that is occurring in Palestine. This foolishness makes us lose allies, which are very necessary, and has, in the long run, a very high cost.

Writing about the future of democracy

Democracy in the digital age

Victor Angelo

 

The Association for the Promotion and Development of the Information Society (APDSI), a civic institution that has contributed over the years to the growth of cybernetics in Portugal, organizes today, at the Convento da Arrábida, a reflection on democracies in the digital age. In other words, a debate on the future of the exercise of political power in the face of extraordinarily rapid advances in the area of ​​information technologies, which will further deepen the era of the instantaneous, as I call the period we live in.

Immediate access to information without reference to context, the abundance of data available at any given time, the truth in competition with the false, advances in artificial intelligence, all this will end up jeopardizing political representation as we know it. It could also seriously undermine the credibility of institutions of governance, the administration of justice, representation and the media, and create new opportunities for manipulating citizen opinion.

As always, it will be the question of control of power that will be at stake. It is only the technologies and methods of achieving this end that change. About ninety years ago, extremists mobilized populations thanks to the adroit use of broadcasting. Now, it is about the ingenious use of digital platforms and the repetition ad infinitum of what is convenient for those who hold authority or want to come to power, regardless of the veracity of what is told. This creates a biased reality, which in politics serves two objectives: the destruction of the adversary's integrity and image; and the consolidation of power in the hands of those who appropriated it. This appropriation, in our western democracies, takes place first through elections and then through the manipulation of information and mirror games. Viktor Orbán is a concrete example, among many. He knows that being in power and losing the elections should only happen to the naive.

The accessibility of digital platforms makes them fertile ground for the propagation of populist ideas. These movements, built around a leader who combines charisma, enthusiasm and personality cult with simplistic slogans, have at their disposal, in this digital age, the means that allow them to massively explore three lines of political action. One, which involves the creation and amplification of collective fears that later use as banners of struggle. Another is the discrediting of institutions and opponents, who are demonized as “professional politicians”. And the third, which tries to subvert constitutional principles by resorting to popular referendums on fracturing issues, using reductive questions, drafted in a biased way.

All this calls into question representative democracy. Even more easily, when democratic practice came to depend on and be dominated by the leader of each major party and parliamentary representation lost its meaning, as it resulted only from personal loyalty and unreserved flattery. There is, therefore, no connection between the deputy and his constituency, at a time when social networks promote exactly the opposite and make everything more personal and direct. This results in a growing disconnect between the voter and the elected, which explains a good part of the apathy that many citizens feel towards electoral processes. Paradoxically, a higher level of information, made possible by digital networks, leads many to abstain, as they do not identify with the ready-to-vote menus of choices made by the parties.

Another phenomenon linked to the abundance of information has to do with political fragmentation. Through social networks, each person tends to identify with only a small circle that thinks the same way and ends up closing themselves in this round of contacts. This leads to the proliferation of opinion movements. In the future, governance will have to take this trend into account. In other words, it will no longer be possible to govern effectively with 50% of the electorate plus one. I am convinced that broader and relatively disparate coalitions will emerge, but necessary to guarantee the representation of various segments of society and governmental stability. The digital revolution will eventually shake up the conventional political scene.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 6 May 2022)

Mr Biden is in Europe

Joe Biden’s urgent travel to Europe

Victor Ângelo

 

The American President is in Europe on an exceptional and urgent basis, which shows the gravity of the current crisis caused by the backward, criminal and imperialistic politics of Vladimir Putin. Regardless of the results of the meetings in which Joe Biden took part, at NATO, at the G7 and at the European Council, I see three central objectives in his trip, which seek to respond to the continuous worsening of the situation in Europe.

First, to send a crystal-clear message about the US commitment to the defence of its European allies. This warning is particularly relevant at a time when hostile rhetoric against Poland is beginning to be heard in Moscow. Dmitry Medvedev this week published a frontal attack against the political leadership of that country - and these things do not happen by chance. They are usually part of a plan of confrontation, which at an early stage seeks to create unrest within the targeted population, undermine the authority of its political class, and simultaneously format Russian public opinion itself. Thus, Biden's trip to Warsaw, after Brussels, is part of the American message. To think that Putin excludes the possibility of entering into an armed conflict against an EU or even NATO country would be a mixture of naivety and thoughtlessness. We are, unfortunately, in a spiral where anything can happen. The American umbrella needs to be recalled in an obvious way. Biden's visit serves that purpose.

A second purpose is surely related to deepening sanctions against Russia, while at the same time trying to avoid dissension among European leaders. The subject, namely regarding gas and oil, is very sensitive. Several European countries have expressed strong reservations, not to say opposition, to a possible suspension of energy imports. A few days ago, the German Chancellor again stated that such a measure would cause a deep recession throughout Europe. But now, with Putin deciding that these imports will have to be paid for in roubles, at whatever exchange rate he wants to set, the embargo becomes a pressing issue. There can only be one acceleration in that direction.

Thirty days after the start of military aggression and escalating acts of war, the approval of a new far-reaching sanctions package cannot be brushed aside. Europeans must accept that the risk coming from the Kremlin is very high and does not only concern Ukraine. It is essential to weaken as much as possible the economy that feeds the Russian war machine. This will naturally entail costs for us. But the biggest cost, growing and permanent, is keeping Putin in power. At the point where things have reached, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful future in Europe with the current Russian regime. Our peaceful coexistence depends on the democratization of Russia, something that is up to its citizens to resolve.

A third objective relates to the need to speed up material aid to the Ukrainian defence effort. The US has just approved $1 billion in defensive equipment and weaponry. This assistance needs facilitation from the Europeans so that it can reach its destination as quickly as possible. Moreover, it must be accompanied by additional means from European countries. On the eve of the Brussels meetings, the EU announced an additional military contribution of 500 billion euros. The provision of all this is extremely urgent. Resistance to invaders, which is an act of legitimate defence, is done with courage and sophisticated means. 

It pains me to have to write a text like this. But let's be clear: there is, I repeat, a risk of armed confrontation in our part of Europe. To avoid it, we must provide unreserved support for Ukraine, be strategic, and firm in our economic, financial, and political responses against Putin, and be ready to accept sacrifices. In short, the moment demands vision, realism, determination, subtlety, truth, and the availability of means.   

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 25 March 2022)

 

 

Vladimir Putin, Ukraine and all of us

When fascism enters our homes

Victor Ângelo

 

In its essence, the fascism of today coincides with that of the last century: in the existence of an autocrat, in the dictatorial power, in the ultra-nationalism, in the continuous exaltation of the homeland and traditional values, from religion to family, and in an inhuman vision of the use of force, either to maintain the internal order and crush the opposition, or to create problems abroad. The dictator manipulates the narrative of his people's past with glorious words, in an idealised way, as if the nation had a historical and civilisational, as well as divine, mission. He sees himself as the personification of the noble national destiny. He places himself on a pedestal above everyone else. He treats the members of his immediate circle theatrically, with arrogance, cynicism, and an iron hand, in order to obtain subservience and flattery. On the international stage, he only respects the rules that suit him. It seeks to impose fear but ends up being treated with mistrust and aversion. Its only foreign allies are found in the puppet elites of vassal countries, in extreme right-wing movements, in others who advocate totalitarian modes of governance, or even in fools.

Fascist dictators are a danger to democracies as well as to international peace. Indeed, as Vladimir Putin reminds us today, fascism leads to war. 

Putin is at the head of a great nation, which throughout history has made a remarkable contribution to European civilisation and culture. A heroic people, who played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazism. A people that belongs fully to the "European house", the great strategic partnership between the EU and Russia, dreamt of in 2003, with the ambition of building an area of freedom and cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

We are now a long way from that dream. The nightmare come true of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, its invasion, the menacing language used by Putin, the verbal threats against our part of Europe and the unacceptable demands, place all of us Europeans in a very serious confrontation. Conflicts, once started, usually get out of control. We know when they start, but we do not know when they end, nor what the damage, the level of suffering and the consequences will be. Not to mention the internal policy Putin conducts, it must be clear that the external one, towards Ukraine and his country's European neighbourhood, is unacceptable and criminal. It is completely outside established norms.

It is time to return to the international legal framework, which has been built since 1945. In that sense, the statement made by António Guterres, on the events of this week, is highly significant and courageous. It will go down in the record of his tenure as a memorable moment. Guterres said, "The decision of the Russian Federation to recognise the so-called "independence" of certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk is a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." He added that the decision contradicts the principles of the United Nations Charter, as well as the General Assembly Declaration on Relations of Friendship and Cooperation between States and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. He repeated the same words again, in a deeply concerned manner once the invasion was consummated.

Never in the history of the UN had a Secretary-General dared to be so clear in condemning a large-scale illegality practised by one of the permanent members of the Security Council. U Thant, who was in charge of the organisation between 1961 and 1971, referred several times to the United States and its unjust war in Vietnam, but did not go that far.

Meanwhile, the EU must respond to this immense crisis with all the diplomatic, financial, and economic arsenal at its disposal. And with a strengthening of its defence architecture.  The aim is to isolate, weaken, punish the dictatorship in power in Moscow and force a return to peace. At the time of writing the measures that will be adopted are not yet known. They should, however, make it clear that a fascist, warlike regime in Europe is morally and politically unacceptable. It will not pass, not now, not ever again. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 25 February 2022)