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

Comparing Victor Ângelo's views with others regarding the relations between Europe and ASEAN

 

Let’s zoom out and see how Victor Ângelo’s views on EU–ASEAN relations stack up against other diplomatic perspectives:

🌐 Shared Themes Across Diplomats and Analysts

• Strategic Importance of ASEAN: Like Ângelo, many experts highlight ASEAN’s role as a key partner for Europe. The EU sees ASEAN as vital for supply-chain resilience and geopolitical balance.
• Multipolarity and Nonalignment: Analysts from the European Union Institute for Security Studies note that ASEAN countries are actively diversifying alliances, avoiding overdependence on any single power — a theme Ângelo echoes in his call for deeper EU engagement.
• Cultural Sensitivity and Pragmatism: While Ângelo stresses empathy and cultural understanding, other voices emphasize practical, results-driven diplomacy over ideological alignment.

🧭 Diverging Priorities and Challenges

• Security vs. Trade Focus: Carnegie Europe points out that despite rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, security hasn’t featured heavily on the EU–ASEAN agenda — a gap Ângelo seems keen to address.
• Democracy and Human Rights: The EU often struggles with how to engage ASEAN on normative issues like democracy and human rights, given ASEAN’s diverse political systems. Ângelo’s writing suggests a more constructive and reform-oriented approach, rather than confrontation.

📚 Intellectual and Institutional Voices

• The European Union and ASEAN official partnership documents emphasize multilateralism, sustainable development, and connectivity — aligning with Ângelo’s call for long-term strategic cooperation.
• Think tanks like Clingendael and Carnegie Endowment advocate for co-authored policy frameworks that reflect both European and Asian perspectives — a method that resonates with Ângelo’s emphasis on mutual respect and shared interests.

In essence, Victor Ângelo’s voice is part of a broader chorus calling for smarter, more empathetic diplomacy — but he adds a personal touch rooted in decades of field experience. 

Again about Europe and Asean

 

Victor Ângelo’s recent column in Diário de Notícias, titled É vital dar mais atenção à cooperação entre a UE e a ASEAN, offers a compelling and timely reflection on the evolving geopolitical dynamics between Europe and Southeast Asia. Here's how we might assess its worth:

🌍 Strategic Relevance

• Ângelo emphasizes the growing importance of ASEAN as a political and economic partner for the EU, especially in light of shifting global alliances and China's expanding influence.
• He argues that Europe must diversify its diplomatic ties and engage more deeply with ASEAN to remain a stabilizing force in global affairs.

🧠 Analytical Depth

• The piece is rich in geopolitical insight, referencing Macron’s symbolic invitation to Indonesian troops in Paris and the China-ASEAN free trade agreement as indicators of shifting power balances.
• Ângelo critiques both Washington’s unpredictability and Beijing’s assertiveness, positioning the EU as a potential counterweight.

🤝 Cultural and Diplomatic Nuance

• He highlights the need for cultural understanding between Europe and Southeast Asia, arguing that diplomacy must begin with empathy and mutual respect.
• The article calls out the lack of emphasis on cultural exchange in the EU’s current ASEAN strategy, suggesting this is a missed opportunity.

📣 Call to Action

• Ângelo urges the EU to strengthen its presence and influence in Southeast Asia through strategic partnerships, cultural diplomacy, and support for multilateral institutions.

In short, the column is not just a commentary—it’s a strategic roadmap. It’s worth reading if you’re interested in how Europe can recalibrate its global role through meaningful engagement with ASEAN. 

Might or right?

My professional travels through the world of multilateral organizations, and through dozens of countries with diverse political cultures, have taught me to look at international relations with caution. This does not mean that I do not believe in respecting the values ​​and principles approved over time, particularly since the signing of the United Nations Charter. This has happened with most states. But, contrary to what many people think, there have been many conflicts since 1945. It must have been a time of peace in Europe, except in the Balkans, but not in other parts of the world. Therefore, common sense recommends caution, as rivalries between countries and between big men persist. 

Prudence means, above all, two things: on the one hand, never underestimating the adversary and, on the other, unambiguously cultivating relations with allies, based on mutual interests and a common political vision.

It is a very serious mistake to consider that the enemy can be easily defeated. This was, in fact, Vladimir Putin's original miscalculation, as he thought it possible to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty in three days, when the gigantic military column he sent against Kiev would reach the Mariinsky Palace, the official residence of President Volodymyr Zelensky. The “Special Operation” was exactly that, in the Russian dictator’s view: a quick incursion, capable of subjugating the neighboring country in a matter of days. It wouldn't even be a war. He underestimated Ukraine, which three years later continues to resist the  aggression.

It is equally a mistake not to invest in a close and interdependent diplomatic relationship with the countries with which we maintain a defense alliance and strategic cooperation. And that consider, like us, that individual freedom and human rights are priority issues. This investment involves, in particular, a balance of forces between allies, in which each one brings something truly essential to the collective effort. And it must be based on a similar understanding of the international context. When there are imbalances or a different reading of the external risks, the alliance will end up transforming into subordination, or will end in rupture. Its continuity will be an illusion.

A pact between unequals ceases to work when a major crisis arises. This is the reality that Europe now faces. In terms of defense and cutting-edge technologies, especially in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and the collection of strategic information, Europe's fragility in relation to the USA is immeasurable.

Despite the political promises of the main European Heads of State and Government and the billions announced by the President of the European Commission, the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic is insurmountable in the coming years. And this will continue during Trump's term, which means that Europe will be at the mercy of the American president's decisions throughout this period.

The Europeans will thus pay for the imprudence of having considered, especially since the end of the Cold War, that Washington was a safe and reliable protective shield, and that its political class continued to maintain an unquestionable cultural and sentimental connection with the countries of the European continent. In today's America, that bond is a thing of the past.

With Trump in power, the context became even clearer. He and his followers see Europe as a consumer market with money and resources that are crucial to reinforcing US global hegemony: rare earths from Ukraine, minerals from Greenland, the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, which is essential for controlling navigation in the Arctic, and the link between the North Atlantic and the Sea of ​​Japan.

Europe is seen as a captured continent, held hostage, destined to respond to the demands of the new America, the America that looks at the world with arrogance, except if it is China or Russia.

This is the context in which Europe finds itself. A Europe of Defence, prudent and capable of taking care of its own security, will indeed have to be built, something that will take at least ten to fifteen years to gain strength. It is, for now, a wish., an undefined plan.

I recognize that it is worth having plans of this kind. They provide encouragement, define an objective that can be shared and consolidate convergence. The generation that is now reaching political adulthood will have the challenge of transforming this demand into reality.

Diplomacy and manifestations of force

A diplomacy with strength

Victor Angelo

 

When the United Nations was created in 1945, its founders had in mind the establishment of a supranational organization capable of resolving future conflicts in a peaceful manner, in particular those that might occur between the great powers. We were at the end of the Second World War, which had brought incredible levels of suffering and destruction. The main concern was to avoid new military confrontations. So, they established a structure that gave the primacy to diplomatic negotiations and that should prevent situations like the one that now exists around Ukraine from sliding into a new war. More than seven decades later, the founding fathers, if they were still among us, would be deeply shocked to see that the UN is completely marginalised here in this part of Europe in the crisis between Russia and the West. As it is in other geographies, where the superpowers intervene directly in the struggle for what they consider to be their vital interests.

The focus on diplomacy, regarding Ukraine and the broader issue of European security, is now taking place in other forums - in the EU, in NATO, in the OSCE in Vienna. And, above all, in bilateral discussions between the Americans and the Russians, leaving the Europeans in a secondary position, even though they are the ones who will have to pay the most important part of the bill, the cost of the decisions that will be taken. The extent of the bill remains to be defined, in economic, financial, or even military terms.

So, it is not only the UN that is left out, but also the Europeans themselves, however much they deny it. It is enough to see that there is no enthusiasm in the Kremlin to discuss a new defence architecture in Europe with the German, French or other leaders. Whether one wants to see it or not, the truth is that the Russians only believe in possible understandings with the Americans. As far as the EU is concerned, Russia is only interested in the most technologically and economically advanced member states, one by one, and only for business reasons. Only on Wednesday, Putin held a videoconference with the heads of the major Italian multinationals (Enel, UniCredit Bank, and the Generali insurance company, among others), while at the same time ignoring the proposals for détente sent to him by Macron and reinforcing the presence of his armed forces in Belarus, a stone's throw from Kiev.

It has once again become clear that we are still part of an international framework in which armed force, or at least those who have it, make the law. This has a very negative impact on the political role of the UN. It also represents a fundamental challenge for the EU, which does not have the military and foreign policy capabilities that would be required to assert its strategic views and interests. The current crisis must be turned into an opportunity to strengthen those capabilities. It is necessary to reduce Europe's double dependence - military and political - on the US just as it is essential to reduce the energy dependence of certain EU member states on Russia.

Returning to diplomacy, I recall that Louis XIV had the Latin locution "ultima ratio regum" engraved on his cannons, to remind us that heavy weaponry was "the ultimate argument of kings". In other words, for diplomacy to be effective when peace is desired, warlike preparation cannot be neglected. However, today's wars are no longer waged using only cannons: economic and financial measures, political restrictions, cybernetics, information and counterinformation are now also part of the arsenal. This is what is known as an integrated response to external aggression.  Such a response is particularly necessary when on the other side we have an autocratic regime, led by an individual who presents himself as the ultra-nationalist protector of his people and national culture, who calls opponents traitors and who does not hesitate to use armed violence, internally and externally, to achieve his personal power objectives.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 28 January 2022)

 

 

What next regarding Aghanistan?

We can't sweep Afghanistan under the rug

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi, the Italian Prime Minister and current leader of the G20, is convening an extraordinary summit of the group for October 12, with only one item on the agenda: Afghanistan. This is an urgent meeting that cannot wait for the annual summit, which is scheduled for the last two days of this month. The concerns about Afghanistan are essentially twofold: the humanitarian drama, already much worsened at the moment, but which will become catastrophic with the imminent arrival of winter; and defining the conditions necessary for the international recognition of the Taliban regime.

The European Union has meanwhile approved a humanitarian package of 200 million euros. Other aid is urgently needed, not least because the donor community pledged more than a billion dollars on September 13, in response to an appeal launched by António Guterres. But, as always, promises are one thing, but their materialization is another. In addition to logistical difficulties and insecurity, the humanitarian agencies need guarantees of neutrality from the Taliban. This is the only way to ensure that food aid, medical and health care, and educational support reaches those in need without exclusion on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, or power relations.

Still in the humanitarian area, there are three other major issues.

One is the payment of salaries to civil servants and security forces who have not been paid for months. I don't think there is a willingness at the G20 level to finance this. Recently, my former colleague Jan Egeland, a recognized voice in the humanitarian field and who now heads the prestigious Norwegian Refugee Council, wrote an open letter on this subject to the UN Secretary-General. It called for mechanisms to be put in place to find a solution to pay salaries to the Afghan civil service, as was already largely the case under the previous government. The letter was a follow-up to his recent visit to Afghanistan and his shock at the widespread poverty. 

Another issue concerns the electricity supply. Millions in Kabul and the country's largest cities are at risk of being left in the dark. With the onset of winter, this could be yet another cataclysm to add to all the others. Afghanistan imports about 70 percent of the electricity it consumes. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Iran are the suppliers. With the Taliban victory and the administrative chaos that followed, payments for electricity imports have ceased. If the situation does not change soon, it is very likely that some of these countries, especially those that were part of the former Soviet Union and have no sympathy whatsoever for the extremists in Kabul, will suspend supply. If this happens, popular unrest will take on a new dimension. 

How long Afghanistan will need exceptional humanitarian aid is the third big question. Assistance must have a time horizon. The country needs to build an economy that allows it to import the energy and basic commodities it cannot produce, and to have a reasonable standard of living. The economy should not be based almost exclusively on opium production.

Recognition of the new regime, including its representation in the UN, will depend on the position that each G20 member adopts. Recent events show a tendency to establish occasional contacts, while at the political level there will continue to be talk of values, human rights, national inclusion, or the fight against terrorism. And to show a lot of mistrust towards Taliban governance. As time goes by, if there is no extreme migratory crisis or terrorist attack that affects the Western world, the new Afghan regime, whether recognized or not, could be just one more to add to the list of repressive, failed and forgotten states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8  October 2021)

 

 

Time to look again at the global order

A new chapter in international relations

Victor Ângelo

Days go by and the world continues to see the dramatic images captured on the perimeter outside Kabul airport, now aggravated by the bomb attack. This is the most visible part of the shock and dread of Afghans who do not believe the promises made by the Taliban. But Afghanistan is larger than Kabul. In the country, especially in the major cities, there is the same panic and despair. Only there, the suffering is far away from the eyes of the world. Those who live in these regions and have the chance, seek refuge in Pakistan or other neighbouring countries.

There are those who think that these images will remain in the memory of humanity for many years to come. And that they will be recalled every time it is convenient to attack Western countries. This will indeed happen. These are scenes that leave a terrible representation of the West, of abandonment, incoherence, and improvisation. The memory issue, on the other hand, is more unlikely. The last two decades have unfortunately abounded in human tragedies. But each new misfortune tends to hide the previous ones. The memory of what happened in Syria, or more recently, of the dramatic situations that the populations of Lebanon, Myanmar and others experience daily, is increasingly faint. At the moment, the Afghan debacle takes up all the screen. 

What we must not forget is that in the eye of the hurricane of conflicts are people. It is time to think in terms of real people, men, women and children, who suffer all the violence, humiliations, terrors and miseries that these crises provoke. International security and diplomacy should be concerned, above all, with the daily lives of those who are victims of extremisms, abuses of power, and all kinds of tyrannies, whether they are in the name of an enlightened leader, a party that holds the absolute truth, or a religious flag.

Three decades ago, the UNDP - United Nations Development Program - helped us to discover an evidence that nobody before wanted or could see. With the release of the first human development report - and the following ones, year by year - it underlined that economic growth only makes sense when it is centered on individuals, in order to lift each one out of poverty, ignorance and ignominy. It is not the GDP that counts, but the progress that each person makes in terms of a life with more dignity.

The scenes around Kabul airport should have a similar effect. And just as the UNDP reports have served to create new alliances in development cooperation, the distress and uncertainties resulting from the handing over of power to the Taliban should be seen as opportunities to build bridges between the great powers, China and Russia included. This week's G7 meeting could have been used to engage Beijing and Moscow in the debate over the conditions of recognition of the new Afghan reality. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The only concern was the vain attempt to convince Joe Biden to extend the US military presence beyond August 31. The meeting confirmed once again that in the West there is no leadership other than the voice of America.

The G7 should be especially concerned about the kind of governance the Taliban will impose. Russia is aware of the risks to the stability of its allies in Central Asia. China is concerned about defending its interests in Pakistan - the Chinese do not rule out a scenario in which Pakistani terrorists and others might operate in the future from Afghanistan and threaten the economic corridor linking China to the Indian Ocean port of Gwadar. Both China and Russia would certainly have a great interest in participating in such a discussion with the G7 countries. This would turn a crisis into an opportunity for a rapprochement between rival powers. Everyone would gain from such a dialogue, starting with the citizens of Afghanistan.

This proposition may seem unrealistic. But the turn of the page imposed on us by the Taliban requires us to look at international relations with a new and forward-looking imagination. Who will take up this challenge?

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)