Lao Zi, founder of Taoism, reacts to Nietzsche's and my views: an imaginary letter

 If Nietzsche represents the Will to Power and Gandhi the Will to Truth, Lao Zi, the founder of Taoism, born in China in 531 a.C., represents the Will to Flow.

From the perspective of Taoism, the "death" of an international order is neither a tragedy nor a triumph of the strong (as Nietzsche might see it). It is simply the natural result of a system that became too rigid, too heavy, and too far removed from the Tao (the Way).

Here is how Lao Zi might respond to my correspondence:

---

From the Banks of the Nameless River

To the Honorable Weaver of Nets, Victor,

You write with great concern about a "shattered stage" and the "death of order." You are like a man who stands by a frozen river in mid-winter and laments that the water has stopped moving. And your friend, the German with the hammer, is like a man who wants to smash the ice with a heavy blow to prove he is stronger than the cold.

Both of you fail to see the river.

You call the "International Order" a cathedral. I tell you it was a dam. For eighty years, you tried to hold back the Great Current with walls of paper, treaties, and ink. You thought that if you wrote enough laws, the world would stop being the world. But the nature of the Tao is to flow. When a dam becomes too rigid, it does not "perish"—it simply breaks because it can no longer yield. This is not the end of the world; it is the water returning to its path.

You speak of Political Nihilism. You fear the "law of the strongest." But tell me: does the oak tree fear the wind? The oak is stiff and strong, and so it snaps. The willow is soft and yielding, and so it survives. You seek "Strategic Autonomy" and "Coordinated Defense." You want to build a bigger, stiffer oak. I tell you: the more you sharpen the blade, the sooner it will grow blunt. The more you amass gold and weapons, the more you invite the thief.

You look to Davos and seek a "Spirit of Dialogue." Why so much noise? Why so many words? When the mouth is open, the heart is often closed. You sign an Agreement in Paraguay and call it a bridge. If the bridge is made of genuine need, it will stand. If it is made of cleverness and grasping, it will wash away in the first storm.

Nietzsche speaks of the Abyss. I speak of the Valley. The abyss is a place of falling; the valley is a place of life. Do not try to "overcome" the vacuum with your will. Empty yourself of your plans, your "paradigms," and your "architectures." A vessel is useful only because of the emptiness inside it.

The world is not a thing to be "managed." It is a living spirit that cannot be interfered with. If you try to fix it, you will ruin it. If you try to grasp it, you will lose it.

You say the world is a "perilous place." It has always been so. But the peril lies not in the "Kremlin's and other forces," but in your own refusal to be like water. Water does not struggle against the rock; it flows around it, and in time, the rock is gone and the water remains.

Stop trying to reconstruct the dam. Instead, learn to swim in the river.

With a quiet heart,

Lao Zi

---

Mahatma Gandhi´s position about the world order: an imaginary letter

 

If Nietzsche represents the Will to Power, Mahatma Gandhi represents the Will to Truth. Gandhi would likely view my letter as a honest diagnosis of a sick patient (the world), but he would find Nietzsche’s "nihilism" to be deeply misguided.

Here is Mahatma Gandhi's imaginary but well-grounded response:

---

Wardha, India (In the Eternal Present)

My Dear Friend Victor,

I have read your letter to the German philosopher with a heavy heart, though not a surprised one. You speak of the "death of the international order" as if a grand cathedral has collapsed. But I must ask you: was this cathedral ever built upon the solid rock of Truth, or was it merely a house of cards held together by the glue of mutual fear and the greed of empires?

You and your friend Friedrich speak much of Nihilism. He sees it as a vacuum of power; you see it as a loss of rules. I see it as a simple, tragic forgetting. You have forgotten that the only "order" that can endure is not one written in treaties by men in expensive suits in Davos, but the one written in the human heart. When you say the "international order is dead," you are merely admitting that a peace maintained by the sword has finally—and inevitably—perished by the sword.

You look to Davos and the Mercosur agreement as signs of hope. I look at them and ask: “Where is the last man?” Does this trade pact serve the weaver in a village in Paraguay or the farmer in the Alentejo, or does it merely grease the wheels of a global machinery that consumes the soul to produce a profit? A bridge built of gold and paper will always buckle under the weight of human suffering.

My friend, you call for "European Defence Autonomy." You say the world is a perilous place and that you must arm yourselves to survive the "Kremlin’s brute force as well as others'." This is the oldest trap in human history. To arm yourself against the brute is to admit that the brute's way is the only way. You seek to become a "Geopolitical Power," but in doing so, you risk losing your soul. True autonomy—what I call Swaraj—is not the ability to destroy your enemy; it is the courage to remain unmoved by his violence.

Nietzsche tells you to seek Strength. I tell you to seek Gentleness. He tells you to look into the Abyss. I tell you to look into the Eyes of your Oppressor until he sees his own reflection and is ashamed.

The "Order" is not dying because Putin and others are strong or because the UN is weak. It is dying because the West tried to build a "Rules-Based Order" without a "Moral-Based Life." You cannot have peace in the world if there is a war in your lifestyle.

Do not waste your breath trying to "reconstruct" the old institutions. They were top-heavy and soulless. Instead, build from the ground up. Let the Global South not bring "interests" to your table, but a new simplicity. If Europe wants to lead, let it lead not by the thickness of its armour, but by the depth of its sacrifice for the planetary good.

The order has not perished, Victor. Only the illusion has. Now, for the first time, you are free to build a peace that does not require an army to defend it.

Yours in the service of Truth,

Mahatma K. Gandhi

Letter to President Vladimir Putin: Christmas 2025

Formal Diplomatic Communication

Date: December 23, 2025

To: His Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation

Subject: Strategic Realignment, UN Charter Compliance, and the Restoration of the European Security Architecture

Your Excellency,

In the interest of regional stability and the prevention of a systemic collapse of the Eurasian security architecture, I write to you to propose an immediate pivot toward a negotiated settlement. The ongoing aggression against Ukraine has created a breach of the peace that now threatens not only the immediate belligerents but the very foundations of the United Nations Charter, which the Russian Federation, as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, is sworn to uphold.

Central to this appeal is a return to Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. To ensure that a ceasefire is not merely a pause in hostilities but the start of a durable peace, I urge the Russian Federation to engage with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) through the following Chapter VII enforcement mechanisms:

Proposed Chapter VII Enforcement Framework

The invocation of Chapter VII provides the legal authority necessary to guarantee that any peace agreement is both enforceable and permanent:

• Provisional Measures (Article 40): The UNSC should demand a synchronized withdrawal of heavy weaponry to a verifiable distance, monitored by a neutral UN-mandated mission.

• Compliance-for-Relief (Article 41): A roadmap for the phased de-escalation of economic and diplomatic restrictions in correspondence with verifiable military withdrawal and the restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty.

• Security Guarantees (Article 42): The authorization of a Robust Peacekeeping Operation to enforce a demilitarized zone, providing strategic depth without unilateral military presence.

Revitalization of the NATO-Russia Founding Act

Beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities, a long-term solution requires the renewal and modernization of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security. A revitalized Act would provide the institutional framework needed to transition from a "balance of terror" to a "balance of interests." 

I propose the following Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) to restore a baseline of predictability:

• Institutionalized De-confliction: Re-establishing the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) at the permanent representative level, supplemented by a 24/7 military-to-military "hotline" between the Russian General Staff and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

• Transparency of Exercises: A commitment to mandatory pre-notification of all military maneuvers involving more than 9,000 troops and the reciprocal invitation of observers to all drills, exceeding the standards of the Vienna Document.

• Strategic Restraint Zones: Negotiating "zones of limited deployment" along sensitive borders where neither side would station permanent, substantial combat forces or nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles.

• Joint Risk-Reduction Centers: Creating a shared facility for real-time data exchange on missile launches and large-scale troop movements to eliminate the potential for miscalculation or accidental escalation.

The Role of the Security Council as Guarantor

The UN Security Council must act as the primary guarantor of this new arrangement by codifying any final agreement into a binding Resolution. This elevates a bilateral truce to an international legal obligation, making any future violation a matter of collective global response.

A return to the diplomatic track, anchored in the legal weight of the UN Charter and the revitalized principles of the Founding Act, offers the only viable path to a stable, peaceful, and prosperous continent.

Framework for War Reparations and Reconstruction

A sustainable peace is inseparable from the principle of accountability for material and moral injury. In accordance with the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), I propose that the peace process incorporate a structured reparations mechanism. This would involve utilizing the recently established International Claims Commission in The Hague to adjudicate claims recorded in the UN Register of Damage.

To facilitate this, I suggest a "Reparations-for-Reintegration" roadmap: a negotiated schedule wherein the satisfaction of adjudicated claims—covering infrastructure reconstruction, environmental damage, and civilian compensation—is linked to the phased and orderly release of immobilized Russian sovereign assets. This multilateral approach ensures that the immense financial burden of reconstruction is addressed through a legitimate legal process, providing a transparent "off-ramp" for the restoration of Russia's standing in the global financial system while upholding the rights of the victims of the conflict.

Respectfully,

Victor ÂNGELO
Former UN Special Representative/USG