A summary of my recommendation about Russia-EU negotiations

 

Summary of Key Points

• US Sanctions on Russian Energy Giants: The United States, under Donald Trump, imposed sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil. The implementation for Lukoil was postponed, allowing time to sell foreign assets and cease activities in Bulgaria, pending US approval. These sanctions threaten the survival of Lukoil and will significantly impact Russia’s public finances, as Rosneft is a major contributor to the Russian budget.

• Effectiveness and Purpose of Sanctions: The main question is whether the resulting financial strain will push the Kremlin towards peace negotiations, which is the US intention. However, the author doubts sanctions alone will quickly change Russian policy. Still, sanctions are justified against regimes violating international law, aiming to weaken Russia’s capacity to continue its aggression against Ukraine and to send a strong message of condemnation.

• International and Humanitarian Considerations: The UN Security Council is unlikely to approve sanctions due to political constraints, so individual states must decide their own measures. Sanctions should respect humanitarian principles, not harm civilians, and aim to resolve the conflict, specifically to end Russia’s unjustified war against Ukraine.

• Kremlin’s Stance and Leadership: The author believes Vladimir Putin is not seeking peace or a ceasefire and expects the war in Ukraine to intensify. Putin is increasingly isolated from diplomatic advice, relying instead on economic and security officials. The choice of Maxim Oreshkin (an economic adviser) to represent Russia at the G20 summit highlights the regime’s focus on economic stability and the importance of economic sanctions.

• Putin’s Geopolitical Ambitions: Putin seeks a legacy as a great Russian leader and only values negotiations with major powers like the US and China, dismissing European leaders as less significant.

• Recommended EU Response: The EU should act on three fronts: continue supporting Ukraine, rigorously enforce existing sanctions, and be ready to engage in serious talks with Russian leaders.

• Role for António Costa and the EU: The author suggests that António Costa, as President of the European Council, should be given a mandate to open direct communication with Putin, aiming to start a dialogue that could benefit both sides and promote peace in Europe.

• Urgency for European Action: There is a pressing need for the EU to act before the US and Russia reach an agreement that sidelines European interests. The EU must be persistent and realistic, recognising that Putin sees negotiations as a means to assert his ambitions, not to seek compromise. The EU should not be discouraged and must assert itself as a major geopolitical player.

Russia and the European Union: dialogue is one of three key dimensions

Russia Must Listen to the European Union
Victor Ângelo

Today, 21 November, was meant to be the day when American sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, two giant Russian conglomerates in the oil and gas sectors, would come into effect. This decision by President Donald Trump, taken a month ago, was recently amended with respect to Lukoil. The company now has until 13 December to sell its foreign assets and until April next year to cease all activities in Bulgaria. Several firms are interested in purchasing the assets in question, but transactions can only be finalised once approved by the Trump administration.

Lukoil, a privately owned company listed on stock exchanges, is a global colossus. Most of its operations take place outside Russia. The profits and dividends it generates weigh heavily on the Russian economy. The decision taken by Washington puts Lukoil’s survival in jeopardy.

For its part, Rosneft, a company controlled by the Kremlin, is the largest contributor to the budget of the Russian Federation. Should the sanctions become effective, they will have a significant impact on the country’s public finances.

The question that remains unanswered, for now, is clear: will the loss of revenue and the resulting budgetary imbalances be enough to convince the Kremlin that there is an urgent need for peace negotiations? That is Trump’s intention. My experience tells me that such an outcome is unlikely. Sanctions, by themselves, tend to have a slow impact on the policies they aim to change.

Nevertheless, I support the application of sanctions against regimes that act outside international law. In this particular case, it is about significantly reducing the financial base and other means that enable Russia to continue its unacceptable aggression against Ukraine. It is also about sending a strong political message of absolute condemnation.

There are no conditions for the United Nations Security Council to approve any package of sanctions targeting Russia. That would, in principle, be the appropriate process. Since it is not possible, each State must decide on the restrictions and pressure it is prepared to exert. However, it must respect humanitarian principles – sanctions must not endanger the lives of citizens in the targeted country – and the sovereignty of third States. They should also aim to contribute to resolving the crisis or conflict, and in this case, to stopping the unjustifiable war for which Russia is responsible.

In my view, neither a ceasefire nor peace are part of Vladimir Putin’s immediate plans. On the contrary, it seems we will continue to witness the intensification of destruction and death in Ukraine, sanctioned by Russia. The Kremlin is betting on war and is convinced it will eventually subjugate Ukraine. The information coming from Moscow indicates that Putin listens less and less to diplomats, including Sergey Lavrov. His main advisers come from the political police apparatus and the economic sphere. Consider who will represent him at the G20 summit this weekend in South Africa: not the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, but the Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office, Maxim Oreshkin. He is an apparatchik with a background entirely linked to the management of the national economy. Concern for economic stability is a priority for Putin. This confirms the importance of sanctions in the economic and financial sectors.

Putin dreams of a victory that will see his name included in the history books of “great and holy” Russia, as he likes to say. His statements, endlessly repeated by the group that controls power and the media in Moscow, reveal a leader who only accepts negotiations with the great powers of the world – Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. The others are seen as minor players, of no value in the international geopolitical chess game. Putin does not wish to waste time in dialogue with European leaders.

The EU must respond on three fronts: maintain aid to Ukraine, rigorously apply the sanctions already approved, and show readiness to begin a serious process of talks with Russian leaders.

With regard to negotiations, my suggestion is simple: António Costa, as President of the European Council, must receive a mandate from the Member States granting the necessary authority to make contact with Putin. His office would then seek to establish lines of communication with the Kremlin, in order to convince the Russians that a cycle of talks between Putin and Costa could be beneficial for both parties and vital for the internal interests of the Russian Federation, as well as for peace in Europe.

There is urgency in moving forward on this front, before the US and Russia reach an agreement over the heads and interests of Europeans. Some will say this scenario is increasingly plausible.

All this must be done without illusions and with great perseverance on the European side. The messages coming from the Kremlin show that Putin sees any possible negotiation as an exercise in asserting his views and ambitions. For him, flexibility, concessions, the search for balance – all these are seen as weakness and admission of mistakes, whether his own or others’. This attitude must not discourage the European side. The EU must put on its boots and enter the geopolitical game, in the only arena that is truly its own, the championship of the great powers. Here lies both an opportunity and a historic obligation.

Asking AI what is my position about sanctions against criminal States

 Based on available information from his public commentary and his background as a former UN official, Victor Ângelo's opinion on diplomatic sanctions is nuanced. He generally views diplomatic and economic sanctions as a legitimate tool to pressure "rogue states" and hold them accountable for their actions. However, he also recognizes their limitations and potential problems.

His perspective is shaped by his decades of experience in the UN, where sanctions were frequently used as a tool of international diplomacy.

The Nuance of Sanctions

• Targeted Sanctions are Preferred: Ângelo, like many in the international community, sees targeted sanctions as more effective than broad-based ones. For example, he has noted how the UN Security Council has imposed targeted sanctions, such as travel bans on key individuals, to make clear the political price of unacceptable actions. This approach is intended to pressure a regime without causing undue hardship to the general population.

• Symbolism and Geopolitical Impact: He has also pointed to the symbolic and strategic value of sanctions. Sanctions can be a way for the international community to signal its collective disapproval and to isolate a rogue state.

• Limitations of Sanctions: Ângelo understands that sanctions are not a guaranteed solution. He has recognized that states with significant resources, such as oil and natural gas, or those with strong emerging alliances, may be less vulnerable to financial pressure.

In his analysis, he often highlights the complexity of international relations, where a single tool like sanctions may not be enough. He advocates for a comprehensive approach that includes a mix of diplomacy, containment, and engagement with a country's neighbors to address the behavior of rogue states.

Security Council Resolution 2720 on Gaza and its tragedy

 1.        The UN System, under the leadership of the SG, is fast moving to be ready to implement SC res. 2720. This should be acknowledged.

2.        The Israeli government is ignoring the resolution and expanding the military aggression. The SC should draft a new resolution to impose sanctions on key Israeli leaders, in view of their disregard of res. 2720.

3.        This is not just about averting “a greater catastrophe and uphold dignity”. It is also about full respect for international law and the SC’s decisions. The Israeli behaviour violates international law and must be dealt with as such as well.

4.        The peace in the region is about to unravel. This should be mentioned as a major concern.

5.        Hamas leaders must also be prosecuted.

6.       The call for a total and immediate ceasefire must be loud, clear, and express a strong sense of urgency.

7.       Special responsibility lies with the UNSC. We must bring the UNSC back to the centre of key peace processes. Its members, particularly the P5, must show they can force the parties to implement a resolution like the 2720. Enforcement must become a very central priority for the SC.

8.        The humanitarian response should go together with the launching of a political process.

9.        The sovereign rights of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are unquestionable.

Ukraine: what's next, after 100 days of agression?

Ukraine: looking beyond 100 days of aggression

Victor Angelo

President Zelensky has stressed that the war will only end with recourse to diplomacy. He is right. He needs to build a peace agreement with the aggressor. This will not be easy. The agreement cannot reward what has been a clear violation of international law, a succession of war crimes, destruction, and acts of pillage. This is the great dilemma, which makes any mediation process a puzzle. In this scenario, an agreement will only be possible between a position of strength and one of weakness. This is a dramatic conclusion. It leads to the search for the crushing or humiliation of the adversary. 

At the outset, one would say that prolonging hostilities is to the advantage of the stronger side. The courage and determination of the Ukrainians would not be enough to respond effectively to a prolonged offensive conducted with unbridled brutality.

It is in this context that external aid is essential. Neither the US nor the EU countries can let Vladimir Putin's Russia defeat Ukraine. If that were to happen, peace, security and democracy in Europe would be seriously undermined. Now it would be Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Poland, Lithuania, or any other country in our geopolitical space. Or we would simply continue to live side by side with a neighbour always ready to do us harm.

Thus, each bloc must assist Ukraine with the means available. On the American side, it has now been decided to provide an arsenal of advanced technology and long-range weapons. The admonitions coming from Moscow following this decision by Joe Biden found an answer in the text that the President signed this Tuesday in the New York Times: it is not about seeking a war between NATO and Russia. The aim is to enable the Ukrainians to have the means to exercise their right to self-defence.

On the European side, the package of sanctions adopted this week at the European Council should be seen in a positive light. It goes as far as the consensus allows. What is essential is that it is finalised without further delay - Hungary continues to put up obstacles - and applied at an accelerated pace.

Even more important is the agreement between the EU and the UK that makes it impossible for ships carrying Russian oil products to insure their cargoes in London and the rest of Europe. Without such insurance contracts, the big shipping lines are no longer able to operate in the service of Russian exports. Experience with Iran shows that such a measure sharply reduces oil exports. This is certainly one of the sanctions so far with the greatest impact.

As I have said several times, sanctions have fundamentally three objectives. To express political condemnation. To reduce the financial capacity that sustains the war machine. And to disconnect the Russian Federation from more developed economies, to emphasise that there is a connection between respect for international law and participation in global markets.

Sanctions should be part of a future negotiation of normalising relations. But they can only be lifted when the Kremlin is no longer seen by Europe and its allies as an unpredictable and threatening regime.

In addition to arms and sanctions, it will be necessary to continue financial support to Ukraine. This support is a potentially delicate matter at a time of relatively anaemic economic growth in Europe and when the rising cost of living is becoming a major concern. But it is the price we have to pay to maintain our stability and security. It is an effort that will last for some time. Later, when entering the negotiation phase, the mediators will have to include on the agenda the issue of war reparations and the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction.  

On this 100th day of the aggression, we are facing a very complex situation. Future scenarios, especially for the next three weeks, should include several concerns. But for now, the priority challenges are four: immediately strengthening Ukraine's defence capacity; deepening isolation and weakening Russia's public finances; maintaining unity amongst us; and continuing to insist on the diplomacy of peace.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated  3 June 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)

 

 

Russia and Ukraine: a fast worsening tragedy

Putin and us: from bad to worse, danger!

Victor Angelo

 

We are now in a new, much more dangerous stage of the crisis started by Vladimir Putin about a week ago. The sanctions adopted by the EU countries and their allies, the placing on alert of the Russian nuclear deterrent forces, the entry of Belarus into the confrontation by abolishing its nuclear neutrality, and above all the large-scale expansion of military aggression against Ukraine, including the attack on civilian targets, all lead to a worsening of the tension between Putin and our part of the world.

The moment demands maximum prudence. Military aid to Ukraine, for example, should be provided without grandiloquent declarations. We must help, but without adding fuel to the fire of rhetoric, without giving the enemy the opportunity to use our words to justify themselves to their public opinion and to escalate further. This is my message to Ursula von der Leyen and the other European leaders.  

The time also demands absolute firmness in applying the economic and financial sanctions that were decided this weekend. 

The SWIFT issue is particularly important. Even without including Russian gas and oil. The lessons I draw from recent past cases - North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran - reveal that a large part of the sanctioned country's foreign trade is suspended. The impact on GDP and the day-to-day running of the economy is enormous. The international payment system ceases to function, and alternatives are few and far between. Trade, which today sustains the standard of living of citizens, is drastically reduced.  

This is how it will happen now. Russia recently set up a system independent from SWIFT, but the number of banks involved is no more than a couple of dozen. And those banks, when faced with the exclusionary measures now decided upon, will certainly hesitate about transactions with Russia, for fear of the associated penalties and restrictions. The safest thing, in business terms, is to stop having banking relations with the Russian system.

Even more important is the decision to block many of the operations of the Central Bank of Russia. Putin was counting on the $630 billion that this bank has as reserves in foreign currency and gold bullion. The problem is that a good part of these reserves - at least 50% of the total - is deposited in other central banks, in countries that have now adopted the sanctions regime. In Japan, Germany, France, the US, the UK, Austria. Access to these deposits is frozen. 

In addition to these reserves, the Central Bank of Russia holds gold bars in its vaults to the tune of 3300 tonnes. It may try to sell a good part of them. But with the sanctions in place, the buyers, even if they are Chinese, will face a great risk when they later try to market this gold. So they will only buy the bars if Russia offers a discount from the current market value, a discount that could be around 30% or more. Thus, what would be worth around 190 billion US dollars under present conditions could, at most, raise 130 billion US dollars. 

These sanctions will lead to a continued devaluation of the national currency, the rouble, which has already lost about 30% against the dollar. They will also destabilise the operation of the country's commercial banks. We are entering into what I would call the "Venezuelisation" of the Russian financial system. Now, this has huge political costs. The European narrative must be able to explain to the Russian population what is behind all this: Vladimir Putin's irresponsible and criminal policy. 

The sanctions are already contributing to the country's international isolation. Dictators don't like to be pushed to the wall and don't like dead ends. This explains the new level of brutality in the offensive against Ukraine. Putin needs a military victory without further delay, even at the cost of war crimes. He thinks that from then on, he will be able to negotiate more forcefully with the Europeans and the Americans. We must tell him that he is utterly mistaken. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 2 March 2022)

Reflecting on the United States elections

United States: after the confusion

Victor Angelo 

This week's subject has been the US presidential election. I don't want to get into the current discussion now. I just want to address two aspects that I think deserve more attention. 

The first is about the "beef". In 1984, a hamburger company created an advertising phrase that was immediately appropriated by the political class. The phrase was: where is the beef? In other words, beyond the verbiage, tell us what concrete proposals you are making? The question remains in the political arsenal and has a lot of argumentative force.

This year's election beef was a mixture of economic perspectives, pandemic management, and the fight for racial equality. These were the flags that mobilised the voters, beyond the deep love or disgust that each candidate raised. It became clear that citizens participate more in the electoral act when the meat is consistent, made of great causes.

The economy seems to have been the most important motivator of voter turnout. This reminds me of the famous expression used by Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign: "It's the economy, stupid! Donald Trump was, for his supporters, the best bet in terms of economic recovery. They were convinced that the covid would soon be resolved with the discovery of the appropriate vaccine. The important thing was to have an ultraliberal president in the economic area and a light foot, in fiscal matters. Trump managed to sell this image, as well as the representation of an opponent who would be in the hands of the leftist wing of the Democratic Party, i.e. who would be a puppet of what he called “the socialist radicals”.

On Joe Biden's side, the beef was in the pandemic, repeating the accusation of Trump's incompetence and lack of respect for safeguarding the lives of his fellow citizens. To this he added the fight against racial iniquities and violence against black citizens.  This political hamburger was a complete meal. But there was a catch: his opponent exploited the image of common sense and balance that Biden conveyed, and tried to turn it into a weakness. Projecting energy is part of the qualities of those in charge. So now we have a leader who needs to work on his image and show that he can combine humanism with firmness, including on the outside front. 

And we come to the second aspect. The European Union needs to draw two or three conclusions from all this.

The first is that Joe Biden, having confirmed his victory, will necessarily have to focus on US domestic politics, to broaden its support base and resolve a good part of the bipolarisation, resentment and hatred that exists in the country. In terms of foreign policy, in addition to a moderate return to multilateralism, he will have to focus on relations with China and this country’s neighbours.  It will have little time for European affairs.

The second is that a large proportion of Americans have a very different view of politics, economics and social relations when compared to the Europeans. The continuing divergence of values leads to a weakening of the alliance with Europe. The political gap between the two geopolitical areas will widen. We must therefore work harder for a Europe that is as autonomous as possible in the areas of defence and security, the digital economy, energy, and international payment systems. The blackmail that the outgoing administration has put on us, seeking our alignment with its unilateral decisions on economic and financial sanctions, has taught us that we must create our own mechanisms in these areas. 

Third, Europe must strengthen its foreign policy to gain space and independence from decisions taken in Washington. European foreign policy remains weak despite the resources made available to the European External Action Service. We must be frank and decisively address this weakness. It is a danger to be in the tow of other powers.

This election should lead to a more balanced and constructive international relationship. The European side must be able to seize the opportunity and become a stronger, more active, and independent partner. If it does, we can say thank you to Donald Trump for forcing us to open our eyes.

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

 

 

 

EU sanctions on Belarus

The European Union has prepared a list of about 40 Belarusian personalities close to Alexander Lukashenko – his name is not in the list – that would be subject to sanctions. The list should be approved this coming week. I will comment further on it as soon as I have seen it and the kind of sanctions that it includes. However, an initial reflection can be made right now. Sanctions are a straightforward way out. The experience has shown that the type of measures adopted ends up by having little impact on the situation. They do not lead to real change. And, in all truth, they hide the lack of political will to undertake a more proactive approach. In this case, I have not yet seen a single proposal that I can say “that’s a concrete way of helping the Belarusian people to solve the impasse”. The EU is not showing enough creative thinking.

Iran is choosing the wrong approach

The drone cum missile attacks against Saudi oil facilities remain a major international issue. Analysts have tried to read beyond these strikes. They seek to understand what Iran’s game plan is. That’s certainly a key question, in addition to several others. We need a plausible answer to it.

Iran is clearly coordinating its actions with their clients in Yemen, the Houthi rebels. Today, both Iran and the Houthi leadership have extended a hand of dialogue. Last week, the hand they were showing resulted in the attacks, a clear act of war. Now, they talk about bringing down the tension. At the same time, the Iranians organise military parades and public demonstrations of force.

But, again, the question is what is their plan? Escalation, on one side, and diplomatic talk, on the other, is a tactic but not a strategy. It is actually a very dangerous approach. It can easily get things out of hand. And that risk is still very much in the air. We are not out of the danger zone.

Iranian leaders think they are now in a stronger position. That’s probably the reason for the attacks. They wanted to show they can strike a country as heavily armed as Saudi Arabia is. A country that is a close ally of the Americans. They wanted to be seen as a sophisticated military power. And send a message that it is better to negotiate with them than to confront them. The problem is that they have little support outside the small circle that is constituted by a few client governments and a couple of armed groups. Bigger countries will choose the Saudi side, if they have to. And the extensive sanctions the US has imposed on them will ruin their fragile economy and will create further opposition to the clerics that control Iran’s power machinery.

I can only anticipate disaster for Iran, if they continue to strike the neighbours and to make bellicose announcements. Therefore, I see the attacks against the Saudi refineries and plants as a very serious miscalculation. It is a tactical victory and a strategic error.

Iran, Europe and the distant US

The key European leaders are shocked by the extreme approach the US is following regarding Iran. They think the maximum pressure policy taken by the Trump Administration is outside the accepted rules of international engagement. They also find unacceptable the targeting of European interests by the sanctions unilaterally decided by the US. The issue of Iran is deepening the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic.  

Iran and the US: the escalating conflict

The military build-up by the US against Iran is a matter of great concern. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital line of communication. As such, it has the potential to be a major reason for a confrontation. The current US Administration will respond with great show of force to any attempt by Iran to disrupt or control navigation through the Strait.

Iran knows that. But they are being pushed against the wall by the American embargo on their oil exports and might make an error of judgement. That makes the situation in the region more delicate and especially dangerous.

The EU should call for restrain.

Brussels must show leadership and initiative.

Unfortunately, I do not see any appetite in Europe to make a statement against the escalation of the tension in that part of the Middle East. It is true that we are now on the eve of EU elections. But it is also a fact that those in charge of the European institutions are very hesitant when the matter touches the US interests. Even now, when they are at the end of their EU mandates, they lack the stature that a stronger Europe would require.

Talking about North Korea

The North Korean problem is very much linked to Kim´s power base. Therefore, its solution passes above all through a package of actions that can undermine the dictator's personal standing. Among other measures, which also include ridiculing the man, the diplomatic and economic ones are the most impactful. That means a very high degree of diplomatic isolation of the regime and the intensification of the economic and financial sanctions.

The question cannot be resolved through bombs and bombastic declarations. Such an approach would be used by Kim Jong-Un to his own advantage. External military action against the regime will allow him to further entrench himself in power.   

On Iran and the lifting of the sanctions

The nuclear-related sanctions against Iran have been lifted. The country is back in terms of business with the West. It is also open for a new type of political engagement with our part of the world. All that can only be seen as good news. Besides the economic opportunities this new situation opens, it is also a contribution to a more balanced distribution of power in the Middle East. The next step is to help the country and Saudi Arabia to normalise their diplomatic relations. It´s in the interest of both countries and also to the advantage of conflict resolution in the region. 

The Pope´s approach

Pope Francis is in Cuba. And his visit shows that principles, diplomacy and attitude can immensely contribute to progressive change. It reminds us that today´s levers of power have a lot to do with values and approaches and much less to do with sanctions and military means. Sanctions and guns have some weight, no doubt about that. But their impact remains limited. They have to be part and parcel of a much larger approach. They have their moment. And then there is a time when they are no longer the best way forward.

That´s what is happening today in Cuba.

And we are fortunate that President Obama fully understands the change that is taking place. 

Putin´s ban list: forget!

The Russian government has issued a list with the names of those barred from travelling to Russia.

I have reviewed it with some detail. It is a mixed bag of second rate EU personalities, nothing more. It pulls together members of parliament, a few politicians, including local ones, another couple of opinion makers, and a handful of senior civil servants from different EU countries.

It is obviously a list to retaliate. Most of those on the list have little power to decide about the European relations with Moscow. They might be vocal, in a few cases, but I am not even sure the EU leaders listen to them.

The best approach to the Putin list is to ignore it. 

Sanctions have an impact on the views around President Putin

In the last few months, the Russian rouble has lost 30% of its dollar value. This is directly linked to the sanctions the Western countries have put in place against Russia´s economic and financial interests. And on top of it, there is a strong fall in the price of oil, which is a key export commodity in Russia. 

All of this bites and cannot be immediately addressed by alternative ties with China and other economies. Such ties take time to produce effects. Russia is confronted with short-term challenges. It is true they have a huge sovereign fund. That gives the leadership some space. But is it enough? One start getting reports of divergent approaches within the leadership. These needs to be further investigated. 

Merkel and Eastern Europe: let the lady try her best

Angela Merkel is investing a lot in her country relations with Russia. Germany has a lot of interests in Russia and does not want the tensions between EU and Moscow to get worse. They are already pretty bad, that´s true. But any further deterioration would mean not only that the sanctions regime would continue to bite but also new measures. They would certainly penalise the Russians. They would also bring quite a bit of pain to the EU economies, particularly to the German one. In the circumstances, the German interests – an easing of the tensions on matters related to Ukraine – coincide with the European ones. It is therefore good news to see Merkel trying to find a solution. She has the authority, the resources, the power, and also very good access to Putin´s ears. Let´s hope there will be some progress in the very near future. 

EU and Russia: sanctions and cooperation, the two sides of the coin

I have just finished my opinion piece of this week for Visão, a well-read general news magazine that is published every Thursday in Lisbon. This time the theme had to be about the relations between the EU and Russia, in the aftermath of the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines plane.

My points are that we have to combine much tougher and better targetted economic sanctions against key Russian enterprises, including Rosneft, making sure they cannot access the European financial markets, with a continuous invitation for political dialogue between Europe and Russia. In the end, both blocs need each other. Russia, sooner or later, will require EU capital, technology and markets to develop its Far East. And Europe has a lot to gain by participating in the economic development of its big neighbour.

However the long term view cannot ignore the realities of today. And the key message here is that Russia has to fully implement the Helsinki Act of 1975 about peace and cooperation in Europe and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.