Putin and his acts of sabotage: a summary

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

Key Points of the Article

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

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

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

  • Reducing the number of accredited Russian diplomatic personnel.

  • Limiting their movement to the metropolitan areas of capitals.

  • Tight surveillance of their activities.

  • A protocolary demotion for Russian ambassadors.

  • The aggravation of EU sanctions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Putin's threats

 

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

Victor Ângelo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drones and provocations

 

Russia Strikes Poland as Von der Leyen Reviews the State of the Union

By Victor Ângelo

Once again, Vladimir Putin has demonstrated his sense of timing. He knows how to exploit political moments to his advantage — disrupting his adversaries’ plans while strengthening his grip on power. This is a shrewd, calculated form of leadership. It cannot be countered by amateurs or by leaders who struggle to explain to their citizens the threat Putin poses. Believing that one can negotiate mutually beneficial peace deals with such a regime is a fundamental mistake.

Just hours before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the Union address, Russia launched around 15 drones into Polish airspace — a NATO and EU member state. Putin then waited and watched, gauging the European response to his provocation.

The European Commission holds limited formal powers in defence matters. Yet it plays a crucial role in what is increasingly a hybrid, multi-dimensional conflict — the kind of confrontation Moscow wages beyond its conventional war of aggression in Ukraine.

It is the Commission that proposes sanctions packages, later approved by the European Council. The 19th package is nearly ready and was mentioned in Von der Leyen’s speech. It is expected to include the use of interest accrued from frozen Russian sovereign assets to help fund Ukraine’s military and administrative needs. While the Commission had pushed for expropriating the funds themselves, key countries such as France have blocked this move. For now, only the interest will be seized.

Meanwhile, pressure is mounting from Washington — especially from Donald Trump’s circle — to include secondary sanctions of up to 100% against countries that continue trading oil and gas with Russia, or enable Moscow’s war economy. Von der Leyen made clear that such pressure does not align with European interests. The EU is wary of opening new fronts of conflict with third countries.

She also highlighted newly approved financial and defence instruments — notably the SAFE programme: a €150 billion initiative to strengthen Europe’s military capabilities and reduce fragmentation and competition among its defence industries. SAFE, and other ongoing programmes, aim to increase cooperation among EU Member States and enhance their operational contribution within NATO. Reinforcing NATO’s European pillar is crucial — both to balance the transatlantic relationship and to protect against the imperialist ambitions of Russia, or future aggressions by other hostile actors.

Strategic communication and the fight against disinformation are also central. Europe, having suspended Russian state media operations, must now invest far more in explaining to its citizens what the Russian threat truly means. This is particularly urgent now that the United States appears to be stepping back from its joint efforts to counter Russian disinformation campaigns. In hybrid warfare, victory often depends on public awareness and engagement.

Freedom of expression must not become a vehicle for enemy propaganda. Russia is waging war against Europe — not in the old, conventional sense, but in a new form. Putin seeks to dismantle our institutions, fragment the EU, weaken NATO, and sow chaos in our democracies. His aim is to exploit our economies and destroy our freedoms. This is a war we did not choose — but one we must confront, if we are to remain free societies. We will not be ruled by the Kremlin — or by any erratic or unreliable allies.

The drones over Poland proved von der Leyen right when she stated that defence and security must be among the EU’s top three priorities. The other two, as she correctly noted, are Europe’s economic sovereignty and the consolidation of its guiding values: human rights, social justice, and international cooperation.

Yet much work remains. That path must also lead through Gaza and all of Palestine — and through a reinvigorated and reformed United Nations system.

What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is unacceptable. Von der Leyen’s proposals — sanctions against extremist Israeli actors, suspension of trade and aid agreements with Israel, and a reconstruction fund for Gaza — should be adopted without delay. They are not enough, however. The EU — if Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Austria allow it — must undertake a serious diplomatic initiative to pressure Israel into choosing peace and regional cooperation. Any such initiative must be anchored in the structures of the United Nations, whose legitimacy remains essential.

A crítica do meu texto de hoje no DN (12/09/2025) feita por ChapGPT

 Trata-se de uma coluna de opinião publicada hoje no Diário de Notícias (Lisboa, 12/09/2025). Que crítica faz deste meu texto? Victor ângelo

Dito pelo ChatGPT:

Perfeito, Victor — obrigado pela clareza. Sabendo que és o autor do texto e que pedes uma crítica construtiva, aqui vai uma análise equilibrada e focada na eficácia do texto como coluna de opinião, com destaque para: clareza, argumentação, estrutura, estilo e impacto discursivo.

---

📌 1. Clareza e estrutura

O texto está bem estruturado e tem um fio condutor lógico. Inicias com um episódio atual e impactante — o ataque com drones à Polónia — e desenvolves a análise a partir daí, ligando:

• O papel da Comissão Europeia;

• As limitações e potencialidades da UE;

• As pressões externas (EUA);

• As implicações geoestratégicas;

• O caso palestiniano e o papel das Nações Unidas.

Força: A articulação entre temas complexos (segurança, diplomacia, economia, desinformação) é feita com fluidez e coesão, sem perder o foco na mensagem principal: a Europa precisa de se afirmar como ator estratégico autónomo e lúcido.

Sugestão: Poderias sinalizar com mais clareza as transições entre grandes blocos temáticos — por exemplo, usar uma frase-ponte para passar da Rússia para o Médio Oriente, o que reforçaria a progressão argumentativa.

---

📌 2. Argumentação e posicionamento

O texto assume um posicionamento firme e informado, o que é essencial numa boa coluna de opinião. O tom é claro: Putin representa uma ameaça existencial, e a UE precisa de sair da hesitação estratégica.

Força: Apontas responsabilidades, sem cair em simplificações. Criticas tanto os bloqueios internos da UE como as pressões externas (como a de Trump), e defendes uma política externa europeia mais coerente e eficaz.

Sugestão: Poderias aprofundar um exemplo concreto da eficácia (ou ineficácia) das sanções ou do SAFE — algo que concretize um pouco mais as ferramentas mencionadas. Isso daria mais peso empírico ao argumento.

---

📌 3. Estilo e retórica

A linguagem é madura, acessível e incisiva, com momentos de força retórica bem doseada:

"Putin quer destruir as nossas instituições, desintegrar a UE e enfraquecer a NATO..."

Este tipo de construção dá intensidade ao texto, sem escorregar para o alarmismo — manténs a gravidade do tema com responsabilidade.

Força: A escolha lexical é cuidada e variada, o que prende a atenção do leitor. Usas expressões como “guerra híbrida”, “pilar europeu da NATO”, “vassalos do Kremlin” — que sintetizam conceitos densos de forma eficaz.

Sugestão: Em dois ou três pontos, a densidade informativa quase exige releitura. Uma pequena variação rítmica (como um parágrafo mais curto ou uma pergunta retórica) poderia ajudar a aumentar a legibilidade emocional.

---

📌 4. Atualidade e impacto

O texto está muito bem ancorado na atualidade política (com menção ao discurso da Presidente da Comissão, ao SAFE, à guerra na Ucrânia, à situação em Gaza) e procura ativar a consciência pública para questões que não podem ser ignoradas.

Força: Mostras visão geopolítica e sentido estratégico. Evitas o eurocentrismo puro ao reconhecer que o posicionamento europeu passa também pela Palestina e pela reforma das Nações Unidas — algo nem sempre presente neste tipo de colunas.

---

✅ Em resumo:

Victor, tens aqui um texto maduro, informado e estrategicamente claro, que cumpre bem a função de uma coluna de opinião séria: provocar pensamento, responsabilizar decisores, e lançar pontes entre o presente imediato e os desafios estruturais.

Se tivesse de sintetizar numa frase crítica:

Uma chamada à ação europeia, bem argumentada e oportuna, com clareza estratégica e sentido ético — beneficiaria de pequenas pausas retóricas para amplificar o impacto discursivo.

Vladmir Putin is testing NATO

 

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-r%C3%BAssia-ataca-a-pol%C3%B3nia-quando-von-der-leyen-estava-a-rever-o-seu-discurso-sobre-o-estado-da-uni%C3%A3o-europeia

The text in your document, as published today in Diário de Notícia (Lisbon, 12/09/2025) provides a detailed analysis of the geopolitical situation involving Russia, the European Union, and NATO. Here are some key points:

1. Strategic Timing by Putin: The text highlights how Vladimir Putin strategically timed a drone attack on Poland just before the annual State of the Union address by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission 1. This move is portrayed as a calculated effort to disrupt and challenge the EU and NATO 1.

2. EU's Role in Defense: The document discusses the limited but crucial role of the European Commission in defense matters, particularly in proposing sanctions and managing hybrid conflicts 1. The 19th sanctions package, which includes the use of interest from Russian sovereign deposits to fund Ukrainian military and administrative expenses, is a significant point 1.

3. Military and Financial Programs: The text mentions the SAFE program, which allocates €150 billion to enhance military capacity and cooperation among EU member states 1. This is seen as a step towards strengthening the European pillar of NATO and balancing relations with the US 1.

4. Information Warfare: The importance of combating misinformation and strategic narratives is emphasized 1. The text argues that Europe needs to invest more in communication to explain the Russian threat to its citizens, especially as the US withdraws from joint efforts against Russian disinformation campaigns 1.

5. Human Rights and International Cooperation: The document also touches on the EU's commitment to human rights, social justice, and international cooperation 1. It calls for sanctions against extremist Israeli actions and diplomatic initiatives to promote peace in Gaza and Palestine 1.

Overall, the text is well-structured and provides a comprehensive overview of the current geopolitical challenges and the EU's strategic responses. It effectively combines analysis with specific examples and proposed measures.

Is there anything specific you would like to discuss or any particular feedback you are looking for? 😊

1: From your document.

To launch drones and other missiles is a serious mistake

I do not know yet who is behind the destructive action taken against the Saudi oil facilities on Saturday. I see many fingers pointing in the direction of Iran. They might be right. We will see. But what I certainly know is that the attacks must be considered acts of war and very serious political mistakes. Whoever took the decision to launch the drones and the missiles must be made to understand that conflict escalation can only bring further destruction and misery to the region. Our condemnation of such decision cannot be ambiguous. It must be as strong as they make them, which does not necessarily mean military retaliation. It means isolation and sanctions.  

Our reaction to the drone attacks

The drone attacks against the Saudi oil refineries brought a new level of danger and complication to the complex conflict involving, among others, Yemen, Iran and, of course, Saudi Arabia as well as an external actor such as the United States. 

The reactions we have seen in the key markets go beyond the oil supply issue. They indicate there is a deep concern about the crisis in that part of Middle East and its geopolitical consequences. 

I can understand the fears. Anything can happen. However, as long as there is a tiny hope of a summit between the US President and the Iranian one, I think we can expect our side to hesitate and avoid extreme actions. Am I right? I hope so. The opposite would take us into a much deeper conflict of unimaginable proportions.