Ukraine, Iran and the European geopolitical priorities

 

Ukraine or Iran? The Frontier of European Sovereignty

By Victor Ângelo

The war launched on 28 February by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a flashpoint of instability in the Middle East and a high-risk global disruption. It is the result of a labyrinthine decision that raises many questions. For this reason, it has become the most debated topic in various international arenas. The angles of analysis are numerous: the legality of the decision, its objectives—including Iran’s nuclear power and the essence of its regime—geopolitical, macroeconomic, and humanitarian implications, the absolute marginalisation of diplomacy and the multilateral political system, as well as issues related to American domestic politics.

For us, it is also the shock that has exposed the European Union’s strategic hesitations. While the world wonders about the future, Europe faces an undeniable truth: by allowing itself to be dragged into the Persian Gulf, it risks forgetting that the future of our continent will be decided, in large part, on the plains of Ukraine.

For Europe, supporting Ukraine is not just any foreign policy choice among others—it is an absolute priority. It concerns the defence of our territorial integrity and our values, the security of neighbouring countries seeking to join the community, and the survival of the European project itself. Russian aggression targets not only Kyiv, but above all the demolition of the entire architecture of cooperation that has sustained peace on our continent since 1945.

Ukraine’s return to a solid and just peace will reinforce the conviction that European borders remain inviolable. For Europe, to lose would herald a future of submission to Moscow or an endless dependence on a Washington that is now increasingly distant from European philosophy and political choices.

Leaving Russia aside, let us add that the EU cannot be subordinate to American zig-zags and interests. Partnership and alliance must not be synonymous with vassalage. This does not imply waiving the right to criticise or sanction autocratic regimes. Sanctions are a way to resolve disputes between states without resorting to war. What remains unacceptable are armed conflicts and military actions outside the legal framework of the United Nations.

An alarming dimension of the current conflict in the Middle East is the immediate drainage of resources that would be vital for the legitimate defence of Ukraine. Recent estimates indicate that more than 1,000 Patriot (PAC-3) interceptor missiles have already been fired against Iranian attacks since 28 February. It is a contrast in which Ukraine loses out, despite the gravity and legitimacy of its situation being incomparably superior. In four years of resistance, Ukraine has received fewer than 600 of these very same interceptor missiles.

This disparity suggests that the Trump administration markedly prioritises the regional objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over European democracies. Brussels cannot stand by in silence while the "shield" that should protect the Ukrainian air space is consumed in a strange war in the Middle East. Every resource spent in the Middle East represents a new opportunity for the Russian missiles that massacre the Ukrainian people day and night.

It is in the light of this strategic error that the recent position of the European leadership must be read. In this scenario, the message Ursula von der Leyen delivered this week to EU ambassadors is profoundly ambiguous. The speech left the impression that von der Leyen has moved closer to the ideas of Trump and Netanyahu than to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the specific case of the attacks on Iran, von der Leyen echoed the arguments—the pretexts, to be more precise—repeatedly mentioned by Washington and Tel Aviv rather than International Law. She abandoned the field of neutrality and mediation, once again weakened Kaja Kallas’s more dialogue-oriented line, and left a significant portion of European observers perplexed, including important wings of the European Parliament.

Europe must be seen by the rest of the globe as a space of values and compliance with international law, of geopolitical balance, and as a defender of the multilateral system. Our strength lies there: in cooperation with the countries of the South who see in International Law the protection they require. By adopting the rhetoric of "military force," as if Europe could become an armed superpower overnight, the President of the Commission seemed to ignore that the true authority of our Union rests on the acceptance of universal values and solidarity with the different peoples of the world. As António Costa stressed after the President’s speech, the EU must defend the international order based on rules. Costa left no room for ambiguity.

I, too, do not wish to be seen as ambiguous. I am against submission, and I do not defend a policy of neutrality, because not choosing is in itself a choice, and rarely the best one. I advocate neither silence nor indifference. As Dante said more than seven centuries ago in his monumental work, the Divine Comedy: "the most pitiless flames in Hell are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis." Respect for International Law and the right to self-defence are not neutral. They are civilised ways of saying no to arbitrary decisions, the use of brute force, and attacks against human rights. It is this crystal clarity that I expect from European leaders and that the future demands of us.

On Iran and the new way of practising diplomact

 The Erosion of Diplomatic Architecture: Why Transactionalism Fails the Iran Test

By Victor Ângelo

The proliferation of unconventional actors in international security has reached a critical inflection point. While market volatility often reacts to the immediate rhetoric of world leaders, a deeper, more corrosive trend is emerging: the replacement of institutional diplomacy with a model of "circular discourse." This week’s State of the Union address in Washington was less a strategic roadmap and more a closed-loop allocution, designed for domestic signaling rather than geopolitical resolution. For those accustomed to the structured stability of the rules-based order, the current American trajectory represents a significant departure from established norms of statesmanship.

Nowhere is this divergence more acute than in the deteriorating situation with Iran. Yesterday’s session in Geneva provided a stark visual representation of this mismatch. On one side, a twenty-strong Iranian delegation—staffed by career jurists and nuclear experts representing a regime that prioritises millenary pride and theological survival. On the other, a skeleton crew of two American interlocutors, including property investor Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. This numerical and professional disparity suggests that Washington is no longer attempting to negotiate a complex multilateral treaty, but is instead treating nuclear non-proliferation as a transactional "closing."

This "real estate" approach to high-stakes diplomacy is a strange geopolitical decision. Unlike the pragmatic, persistent negotiations that defined the Gorbachev-era thaw, the current "triunfalismo" emanating from the White House ignores the specific gravity of the adversary. 

We are no longer in an era where words serve as a bridge; they have become a tool for division and ego-projection. With Benjamin Netanyahu signaling that the window for deterrence is narrowing, the risk of armed intervention has shifted from a theoretical contingency to a matter of hours or days.

Commenting on the State of the Union and the crisis in the Middle East (Iran)

 

Opinion Diário de Notícias 

From the State of the Union to Iran: Between Rhetoric and Real Risk

Victor Ângelo

International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

Published on: 27 Feb 2026

---

We live in a society where "doctors" in the most extravagant branches of "Political Science" are proliferating. Many of them provide commentary on television opinion programmes in a manner that is as irrational as it is effective at capturing the largest possible number of viewers. This leads me to wonder whether any of them has ever studied the political thought of Cantinflas, who won a Golden Globe in the field of comedy—a close relative discipline to party politics. Although he passed away in 1993, it seemed appropriate to revisit his interventions in the art of politics and imagine how he would have reacted to the "rigmarole" speech Donald Trump delivered this week on the State of the Union.

Cantinflas was a shrewd man and, as a neighbour to the US by virtue of being Mexican, he would certainly have paid mockingly close attention to the American president’s harangue. I have no doubt he would have been delighted. Trump proved, once again, to be one of his own: an extraordinary orator in a style the Mexican character appreciated—the circular discourse. That is to say, an endless allocution that repeatedly returns to the same themes, as if the speaker were trapped in an arena with no exit.

Trump, in his 2026 State of the Union, dwelt repeatedly on immigration, the success of his administration (particularly in the economy), the incompetence of the Democrats, patriotism, the eight peace deals achieved, and negotiations with Iran. The intentions of the speech were clear: to display brilliance, project power, and sow division. Cantinflas used to say that these are a politician’s primary weapons, to which I would add intrigue. The comedian would have given Trump’s lecture top marks.

He would, however, be concerned regarding Iran. Although Trump speaks of negotiations and claims to prefer a deal—yesterday, a new and strange session of talks took place in Geneva, featuring two American interlocutors and two dozen representatives from Tehran, a contrast that reveals the disparity in expectations—the reality is that we are very close to an armed intervention. I do not know if it is a matter of hours or days, but the signs do not seem to deceive. Benjamin Netanyahu could enlighten us, as he is surely on the inside of the matter.

I have already written in the 6 February edition of the DN that a confrontation between the US and Iran would be "profoundly dangerous and complex." For the region and for various other parts of the globe.

The White House, however, prizes triumphalism over diplomacy. In this regard, it mirrors the dominant position in the Kremlin: the superpowers have ceased to believe in talks. Now, it is about crushing one’s adversaries.

It was not like this during the Cold War, especially in the final decade that ended with Mikhail Gorbachev’s mandate. My generation at the United Nations and in international diplomacy will remember that Gorbachev advocated, when speaking with Washington or in New York, the idea of persistent negotiations and openly criticised any decisions he deemed thoughtless, unbalanced, or dangerous to global stability.

It was through working with people like that, on both sides of the wall, that I learned that to win in the ceaseless quest for respect for International Law, one must be persistent and patient. This message should be reminded to those in charge in Washington regarding Iran. Similarly, it would be relevant to underscore to both the White House and the Kremlin another lesson from the times when agreements reached at the UN and other multilateral forums were respected: it is generally a crass error to underestimate one’s opponent.

At the UN General Assembly in September 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian guaranteed that his country does not intend to build a nuclear bomb. Words are worth what they are worth and, in politics, they often fail to withstand a sudden gust of wind. For most leaders, good political practice means being skilled in the art of lying through one's teeth. Pezeshkian’s promises certainly do not withstand the vision of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who views the US and Israel as his country’s mortal enemies and the production of missiles—and likely nuclear weapons—as the only salvation for his regime. But the truth is that the regime suffers from a much greater threat: the majority of Iranians want to end the theocratic dictatorship of the ayatollahs, a power that is terribly repressive, antiquated, and unacceptable by the standards of Human Rights.

In a world of courageous people, the United Nations should be trying to promote, tirelessly, an encounter between Donald Trump and Ali Khamenei. A direct dialogue, a face-to-face between the two. It would be difficult, but not impossible. This was one of the lessons we learned from Winston Churchill and many other high-calibre statesmen. Churchill believed in the efficacy of summit meetings. He would be flabbergasted to learn that Trump had sent the poor soul Witkoff and the property investor Kushner to Geneva to discuss the solution to a confrontation that could turn the Middle East and other parts of the world upside down. They are not up to the task. Especially when, on the other side, stands a nation with millenary pride. And one that feels inspired and protected by a divine force. That kind of illusion holds great power.

Europe and its autonomy

Europe Must Depart the Labyrinth and Establish its Autonomy

by Victor Ângelo

Europe can no longer afford the luxury of hesitation upon the international stage—most especially now, as the global landscape increasingly resembles a field of forces set upon a collision course. For too long, we have permitted our strategic vision to be held captive by two obsessions: a credulous subordination to the patronage of the United States, and a lingering dread of a destructive avalanche from the Russian quarter. In both instances, Europe has suffered a diminishment of its sovereignty and its standing. Our paramount duty is to reclaim them.

We exist today amidst hostilites emanating from various quarters. It is imperative that we confront them. The external strength and the reputation of the European Union are but a direct reflection of our internal cohesion. In these times, it is essential to accord respect to others, to advocate for equilibrium, and yet, at once, to project power. Internal cohesion is, therefore, in my judgment, the foremost concern.

To achieve this, we must bolster European complementarity through decisive measures: firstly, by the harmonisation of our principal policy dimensions, thereby ensuring that internal fragmentation is not exploited by external competition; secondly, by fortifying our democratic resilience against disinformation, establishing an effective protocol to counter hybrid threats and the falsehoods intended to fracture our societies; and thirdly, by massive investment in integrated infrastructures—both in energy and the digital realm—to ensure that no Member State remains a vulnerable target for the blackmail of third parties.

A Europe that is not solid at its core can never truly be sovereign at its frontiers, nor can it exert significant geopolitical influence. This necessitates the strengthening of our common identity—whilst respecting our cultural and national diversities—and the active engagement of our citizens and their representative institutions.

By "sovereign independence," we do not imply a defensive isolationism, but rather the capacity to assert and defend our strategic interests. We speak of a multidimensional sovereignty: energetic, technological, cultural, political, and military. To be sovereign is to ensure that the decrees of Brussels and elsewhere reflect our common priorities, and that our partners are chosen upon the basis of reciprocity, never of submission.

We must not overlook China, which occupies the very heart of the super-powers. Our relationship with China demands a realism unburdened by naivety. Our course must be charted in Brussels. The objective is the reduction of risk, though without a rupture, protecting strategic sectors and ensuring that relations are governed by mutually accepted rules.

Simultaneously, sovereignty is won by engaging with all. It is imperative that Europe, as a singular whole, speaks with Moscow as much as it does with others. To maintain open channels with the Kremlin is not a demonstration of weakness, but a realist acknowledgement of our geographic circumstance. A productive dialogue with the Kremlin is, at present, well-nigh impossible. To Don Quixote, it would be akin to inviting a serpent to one’s table and naming it diplomacy. Nevertheless, I believe that democratic Europe, in its entirety, must attempt a dialogue. Russia, under its current leadership, has been transformed into an ill neighbour; it inspires no confidence—rather the reverse—yet it dwells at our very doorstep. The first step must be to demonstrate to Moscow that the prolongation of its aggression against Ukraine leads to the ruin of all, Russia most of all. Sun Tzu, in his celebrated work The Art of War, observed that "there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." When victory is not swift and decisive, the wisest course for the aggressor is withdrawal.

Within this new architecture, NATO must transcend its one-way dependency. Aligning with the vision that Mark Rutte has brought to the Alliance at the commencement of his tenure, Europe must strive to construct a European pillar of defence that is operationally autonomous. As the Secretary-General has reiterated: "European security cannot continue to be an imported commodity." To reform NATO is to ensure that Europe assumes primary responsibility for the stability of our own continent.

In the wake of Davos 2026 and the forthcoming Munich Conference, and within the process of the United Nations' reorganisation (UN80), Europe must assert itself as the architect of a reinvigorated and effective multilateralism. The message must be plain and direct: we must restore trust between States. In the reform of the UN—which is now more urgent than ever—Europe must lead the transition toward a system that reflects contemporary reality, advocating for an expanded Security Council wherein the voice of the Global South and regional powers is institutionalised, and the power of veto ceases to be an instrument of paralysis.

This effort toward multilateral reform is currently imperilled by transactional and exclusionary proposals, such as the extraordinary "Board of Peace" suggested by the United States administration. This proposal, which seeks to replace collective diplomacy with a directory at the service of the personal interests of Donald J. Trump, constitutes an unacceptable ambition. By attempting to circumvent international institutions, the "Board of Peace" seeks to impose a mercantilist order, founded upon a vast ego and a nineteenth-century concept of empire that disregards the rights and sovereignty of States. In a word, it is an aberration.

The stability and geopolitical influence of Europe shall not spring from arms alone, nor from the modernity of our economies. They shall result, also, from our capacity to stand shoulder to shoulder at every level with those who wish to subjugate us, from the moral force we bring to the defence of universal values, and from the bridges we choose to build with democratic regimes across every region of the globe.