Europe: The political indifference of the citizens and the mediocrity of the leaders

Europe and Democracy: The Dual Crisis of Indifference and Dependency

Victor Ângelo

It could be said that Europe is going through a period of crisis. Across much of the EU, citizens appear to have lost confidence in the political class and institutions. The reason is clear: a lack of satisfactory responses to social issues deemed essential. These include affordable housing, the growing malfunction of public services—especially in the areas of health, education, justice, and security—and political opportunism. More generally, all of this is compounded by the negative impact of the rising cost of life, which is linked to decisions made on the other side of the Atlantic. In the view of many citizens, the leaders of our Europe appear to lack sensitivity and courage.

When hope is lost, democracy does not collapse—it deteriorates silently. Byung-Chul Han, a Korean thinker long based in Germany, states that our societies have reached a phase of "fatigue": citizens are saturated, overwhelmed, and alienated by the digital flow, whether true or false. They feel isolated and incapable of mobilizing the energy required to carry out the changes that politics demands. The incompetence of institutions and the incoherence of politicians push citizens toward egocentrism, toward the solitary management of survival, and toward withdrawal from the public sphere. When the State fails, each individual retreats into their own microcosm. Politics ceases to be a space where hope is built. For many, it is merely a distant noise.

Digital disinformation is one of the instruments of democratic erosion. Algorithms optimized to maximize emotional reactions and content manufactured by artificial intelligence corrode public trust in a structural way. A survey from Special Eurobarometer 568 (2025) leaves no room for doubt: 79% of Europeans fear that voters will cast ballots based on false information, and 70% fear foreign interference. The credibility of national parliaments and governments hovers around 35%. In the case of political parties, the figure is even lower. In Portugal, the European Union maintains some credit, but the Assembly of the Republic and the parties follow the same downward trajectory seen in other European states.

In several societies, immigration, managed for years without a coherent strategy, has become the catalyst for social anxiety. Over time and with mass entries, unease has turned into resentment. It is in this terrain that the Rassemblement National (France), the AfD (Germany), Fratelli d'Italia, Vox (Spain), and Chega (Portugal) thrive. They grow because they exploit the vacuum left by traditional parties—yet they offer no realistic alternatives. Merely demagoguery. Furthermore, they generally ignore the axis that determines the viability and autonomy of the modern State: technological sovereignty. They discuss symbols, borders, and identities while the infrastructure sustaining democracy is in the hands of third parties.

Europe operates today based on digital systems that it does not control. Technological sovereignty means that a State controls the essential elements for its proper functioning: data, networks, software, hardware, AI platforms, and sources of information regarding major events with global impact. Europe is far from mastering these pillars.

The risk is not theoretical. If access to Microsoft and Google services were to fail—due to technical causes or even external retaliatory decisions—or if the supply of microchips from Taiwan's TSMC were interrupted—even if only for a short period—hospitals, businesses, schools, and public administration would grind to a halt. If Chinese electric vehicles were remotely shut down—for a political motive or diplomatic tension—logistics and our daily lives would collapse. A democracy dependent on foreign infrastructure and hardware is not sovereign: it is simply vulnerable. This fragility does not result from geopolitical fatality, but from decades of omission and false priorities in European policy.

Gaia-X, launched in 2019, is the European attempt to recover some control. It is not a "European Google." It is fundamentally a framework of rules, certifications, and standards. In parallel, the Regulation on the Development of Cloud Computing and AI seeks to build physical capacity—data centers, common infrastructures, and requirements for public administration. Gaia-X defines the protocols; the Regulation tries to build the material support.

However, these steps are insufficient. They are slow, timid, and decided by people from the legal field rather than from engineering, mathematics, or economics. They do not reduce, in the short term, the dependency on hardware, submarine cables, semiconductors, and base software originating from abroad. And the political problem is even more serious: these are orphan projects, forgotten, much like the Draghi report (2024). Neither traditional parties nor populists treat technological sovereignty as a priority. They prefer the comfort of easy narratives to the effort of building the strategic capacity that the present and future demand.

Thus, Europe remains a hostage—not by imposition, but due to flawed policies. Technological submission is not a mere backdrop to democratic fatigue: it is one of its most relevant causes. And this situation drags down the discredit of democracy and politics.

Reserves of resilience still exist—visible, for example, in the relative trust that the European Union maintains in countries like Portugal. But the future of our democracies demands clear and urgent decisions on two fronts: in the human dimension—housing, immigration, public services, functional governance, social protection for the most vulnerable, and the promotion of a democratic culture; and in the technological dimension—accelerating Gaia-X, building a sovereign cloud, investing in cutting-edge infrastructure, and mobilizing financial and technical resources at a supranational level.

The fatigue or indifference of citizens and the technological submission of States are the two sides of the same coin of crisis. Political incompetence generates social atomization; social atomization feeds political incompetence and populism. This is the vicious circle that we will have to break.

Security in Munich 2026: a complex debate

The Munich Security Conference is set to take place from the 13th to the 15th of February. It remains a watershed moment in global political discourse; one need only recall the fractious intervention of the American Vice President, JD Vance, at last year’s gathering to grasp the weight of the meeting.

We find ourselves now in an even more precarious phase. As the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, remarked recently in Davos, we are in a state of "permanent rupture"—an era of "brute reality" where Great Powers wield trade and force as instruments of coercion. He is, in large measure, correct. Indeed, his observation is one I have touched upon in recent writings.

I must reiterate, however, that we cannot permit ourselves to be overcome by pessimism, nor by the irrationality and violence of autocrats. To fold one's arms is no solution. The world is not fated to be ruled by narcissists, dictators, or the deranged. Mahatma Gandhi once reminded us that there have always been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall—always.

The speeches to be delivered in Munich are currently being drafted. It seems to me, therefore, an opportune moment to share a series of thoughts on themes I consider paramount.

I shall begin by quoting Kofi Annan, with whom I worked for several years: "Our mission is to place the human being at the centre of everything we do. No wall is high enough to keep out global problems, and no country is strong enough to solve them alone." Long before him, Martin Luther King Jr. observed that we are "caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" that ensnares us all.

The messages of both men are plain to understand: either we commit to solidarity between peoples, or our societies and the planet, as we know them, can only draw closer to the abyss.

I observe with concern the apologia for "useful subordination," which some term political realism. This so-called realism, to which the Great Powers seek to subjugate us—and which certain theorists and leaders champion—must be regarded as a perilous anachronism. It is a sort of "survival guide" that, under the guise of accepting force as the defining factor in international relations, proposes the abandonment of universal principles in exchange for an illusory stability. This political vision being sold to us stems from the exhausted and dangerous premise of accepting "spheres of influence." In other words, they draw inspiration from the suzerainties and vassalages of yore, claiming them to be the best means of ensuring peace. There must be those in Munich prepared to dismantle this fallacy.

The true strength of a State does not reside solely in its military arsenal. It rests equally upon its legitimacy and the courage of its people. To invest in an atmosphere of fear is the preferred pursuit of dictators and populists. When we allow them to wield that weapon, we march toward perdition. This is happening even amongst us. A climate of dread is developing in Europe. The paralysis engendered by fear is the true weakness of a nation. It is vital that it be said in Munich: we are ready to overcome this terror, from wherever it may come. Audacity, anchored in values, is the answer.

Ukraine serves as a testament to this. Her people know it well. Ukrainian resistance is an act of moral courage proving that a people of free spirit is invincible, even when confronted by an imperial philosophy that views the world through a nineteenth-century lens. Zelensky’s address in Davos was a plea for reflection, though it was somewhat eclipsed by Carney’s speech. Zelensky openly criticised Europe, describing it as a "fragmented kaleidoscope of small and medium powers"—hesitant, dependent on the United States, and lost in internal squabbles while Russian aggression persists and Putin’s oil flows freely along European coasts. He proposed that this oil be seized and the proceeds used to fund the legitimate defence of Ukraine and, by extension, our continent.

It is true that the financial assistance provided to Ukraine by the EU since the illegal Russian invasion of 2022 already exceeds 193 billion euros—a considerable sum, surpassing even that of the Americans. Zelensky may, perhaps, have gone too far in his rhetoric. He did, however, have the merit of underlining that without fierce determination, financial means (including those necessary to procure arms), imagination, and political steadfastness, it will be impossible to withstand Russia’s unjustifiable violence.

It would be well for Zelensky to deliver a similar speech in Munich, but to replace criticisms with proposals. And democratic Europe must respond by showing it grasps the danger that the intentions of Putin—and others—represent. The hybrid war against Europe is already underway; and while the greatest threat emerges from the East, we must not lose sight of threats arriving from other quarters.

All of this reminds us that national sovereignty is an inalienable right which we have a responsibility to protect. This is enshrined in the world's commitment to the Charter of the United Nations. Munich must underscore this, while simultaneously placing the reform of the United Nations on the agenda. This is among the most urgent priorities on the international stage. Those countries that cherish the rule of law, the equality of rights between all States, and peace, have here a standard around which to rally. And a priority.

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

Discussing security and governance in the Sahel

In the Sahel, a lot of military and little politics

Victor Angelo

 

The call came from Bamako. On the other end of the line was a former colleague, now back home after a brilliant career in the United Nations. The essence of his conversation was against the massive presence of foreign troops in his country. There are more and more of them, both in the framework of the UN mission - known by the acronym MINUSMA - and due to calls by France. Contrary to recent statements by Emmanuel Macron, who said that the war against terrorism in the Sahel was being won, my friend told me about the deterioration of the situation in Mali and in neighbouring countries. In other words, there are more military personnel but, paradoxically, less security.

Let us look at the latest statistics from the International Organization for Migration. They count about 1.7 million displaced persons due to instability and armed actions in this part of the Sahel, especially in the tri-border area between Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso - a region known as Liptako. It is estimated, on the other hand, that about seven thousand lives were lost in the last twelve months due to acts of terrorism and counterterrorist prevention and response operations. These are figures well above the average of previous years. What is more, a recent United Nations investigation shows that war crimes and atrocities have been committed in Mali since 2013. The report, which in addition to pointing the finger at terrorists calls into question the armed forces of certain states, has fallen into a deep hole in the Security Council and awaits debate at the Greek calends. 

Liptako is a vast territory, with an area where Portugal could fit three times over. The Fulas, as nomadic herdsmen and itinerant traders in long caravans, have traditionally shared these dry, harsh expanses with other ethnic groups. But ways of life have changed. Accelerated population growth in recent decades, coupled with enormous pressure from cattle rearing - a multiplication of herds -, increasingly irregular and scarce rainfall due to climate change, poverty and the absence of effective state administration have contributed to a widespread environment of social instability, rebellion and conflict. The rush for gold, which began to be exploited intensively on an artisanal basis some twenty years ago, has also attracted new waves of violence. This is the framework in which various armed gangs move and operate under the confused banners of the terrorist network of the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) or, further north, on the way to the border with Algeria, the people affiliated to Al-Qaeda. Religious fanaticism serves as an excuse or muddles along with banditry. For many young people, the Kalashnikov has replaced the shepherd's stick or the farmer's hoe in a context that is becoming progressively more arid, unpredictable, and dangerous. Someone from the region told me that joining an armed group is for many an act of self-protection.

There is a huge problem here that fundamentally requires two types of approach: one will be political and the other will be to combat desertification and poverty. I will mention only the political part, which requires the inclusion of all, without discrimination on ethnic grounds. It also means publicly showing a firm hand against corruption, in military institutions and state administrations. Inclusion and probity are two fundamental issues, which must be resolved by national elites.

 The European partners have closed their eyes and pretended not to see these problems. For example, they have been training officers in the Malian armed forces for years, knowing fully well that these officers have kept a tribal mentality and systematically divert resources intended for the country's stabilisation effort to their own advantage. We need to change the way we act in the Sahel. Dialogue with the countries in the region must be respectful. The future that is at stake is theirs, independently of the external dimensions. We cannot take the direction of the process away from them. Being more papist than the Pope in other people's land is a practice that must be put away once and for all, in a drawer of the past. But it must be a frank dialogue.

 

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