Vladimir Putin' s rhetoric about the Third World War

My opinion column of this week, published on 9 Feb in Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, in Portuguese language. This is an Artificial Intelligence translation on my text, thanks to Google Translate. 

Fight against foolishness or open the doors to populist danger?

Victor Angelo

The bellicose rhetoric of Vladimir Putin and his acolytes against NATO and the European Union has worsened as we approach the Russian presidential election, scheduled for March 15th to 17th. Experience teaches us that there are no reasons for surprises. It is a common tactic of dictatorships. The political narrative of these regimes seeks to convince voters of two deceptions: that the danger coming from the “external enemy”, so designated even though it is not in fact an enemy nor is it actually preparing for armed intervention, is now more serious and imminent; and that only the re-election of the absolute leader, with an overwhelming percentage of votes, will be able to prevent the enemy from launching the alleged aggression, invented by the dictator's lying propaganda. That's why we now hear talk in Moscow about the possibility of a third world war, a topic that is part of the frequent interventions of Putin's most famous court jester, the vice-president of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev.

In my opinion, Putin and his people do not want to enter into an open and widespread war with NATO. Rather, they intend to maintain control of political power in their country and transform the fierce aggression against Ukraine into what could be seen by the international community as a Russian military victory. In concrete terms, it is about seizing a significant part of Ukrainian territory and imposing an armistice entirely based on the political conditions defined by the Kremlin. In this way, they would reinforce their image as a great power in the international context. This is one of Putin's biggest concerns, showing an unbeatable Russia, in the champions league and capable of dictating its political will on the international stage. They would feel safer not only in relation to the West, but also in relation to China. The alliance with China is seen, by influential ideologues of Putin's ultranationalist regime, as a double-edged sword. Political friendship and cooperation with an extremely vast, populous neighbouring country with thousands of kilometres of common border hides, at the same time, the roots of a rivalry that could degenerate into a major conflict. This is why Russia needs to show military muscle, West and East.

On the European side, as I always insist, it would be a mistake to leave half-hearted aid to Ukraine in the legitimate defence of its sovereignty. The combination of economic, diplomatic, informational and military means is essential to convince the Kremlin to put an end to the invasion that began in 2014. Those who do not understand this fact and the need for an integrated strategy, which combines the four vectors mentioned in the previous sentence , is creating the conditions for, sooner or later, a series of oppressive governments to emerge in Europe, inspired by what is happening in Russia. We would then have a Europe that would be a very dangerous chessboard of replicas of Hungary.

It would also be a mistake not to prepare our geopolitical space for an armed confrontation with Russia. Whoever wants peace prepares for war, as it was said in ancient Rome. And although it can be recognized, as I do in this text, that Putin does not deep down want to start a war with our part of Europe, that possibility exists.

We need to speak frankly. We are, as has not been the case for a long time, in a complex and dangerous situation. We cannot accept either populism or a lack of ethics in international relations.

Populism lies, and only leads to confusion. It fails to understand what should be a priority in order to respond only to vote hunting and polls. Populist leaders, on the left and on the right, promise the impossible, spend resources on unsustainable policies, create debts that future generations will have to resolve and ignore that security and defence are indispensable for safeguarding democracy. They don't have the courage to tell the truth and explain that there are moments in history when sacrifices have to be made. Populists are narcissists and born dictators disguised as friends of the people.

Disregard for values prevents international alliances from functioning. Cooperation is replaced by chaos. Countries lose their credibility and principles are no longer the standards for resolving conflicts. The ethical references that have been built over decades are forgotten. The defenders of opportunism, which they call political realism, regain the stages they had lost.

  In the European case, international law is rightly defended when it comes to Ukraine. At the same time and in an incomprehensible way, ambiguity and laxity are expressed when it comes to the inhumanity that is occurring in Palestine. This foolishness makes us lose allies, which are very necessary, and has, in the long run, a very high cost.

Traduction IA de ma chronique d'aujourd'hui publiée dans le Diário de Notícias, Lisboa

 2024 est une année cruciale, qui exige du courage et des réponses à la hauteur

Victor Angelo

J’ai passé des décennies à diriger des missions politiques, de paix et de développement des Nations Unies. C'est à l'ONU que j'ai grandi professionnellement et appris à résoudre des conflits, certains assez graves, dans lesquels la mort et la douleur se cachaient derrière chaque dune, arbre ou rocher. J'ai ainsi acquis une vision plus large du système international et de la manière dont les relations avec le Conseil de sécurité devraient être menées. Puis, pendant des années, j'ai travaillé comme mentor civil à l'OTAN, préparant les futurs chefs d'opérations militaires, soulignant à plusieurs reprises la nécessité d'obtenir le soutien des populations et des organisations humanitaires dans ces opérations.

L'expérience m'a appris l'importance primordiale qu'il faut accorder à la sauvegarde de la vie des personnes. Lorsque je m’adressais aux généraux, aux commandants des forces de police et aux agents de sécurité de l’ONU, la priorité était de souligner la valeur de la vie. Celle des nôtres, qui faisaient partie de la mission, ainsi que celle de protéger la vie des autres, de simples citoyens, soupçonnés ou non de collaboration avec les insurgés, et même la vie des ennemis.

Rien ne peut être résolu de manière durable s'il n'y a pas un profond respect pour les populations civiles vivant de part et d'autre des barricades, si les autres sont traités comme des personnes sans valeur, à qui l'accès à des biens vitaux, comme de simples animaux, peut être coupé. ... à abattre sans pitié ni pitié. Tuer ne résout aucun conflit. Pour chaque mort aujourd’hui, de nouveaux combattants émergent demain, avec un sentiment de vengeance encore plus fort. L’essentiel est de créer les conditions de la paix, d’ouvrir les portes aux négociations et à l’entente. Une guerre de représailles est une erreur. Il s’agit d’une réponse de représailles, œil pour œil, dent pour dent, inspirée d’un ordre juridique ancien. Ou, dans une hypothèse plus actuelle, il s’agit d’une guerre dirigée par des dirigeants politiques manquant de bon sens et de clairvoyance.

J'avais aussi en tête, dans mes lignes directrices, la sagesse du génial Charlie Chaplin, dans le personnage émouvant du clown Calvero. Dans son film Highlights (1952), Chaplin fait dire à un moment donné au clown Calvero que « la vie est une chose belle et magnifique, même pour une méduse ». Oui, même pour une méduse, un invertébré gélatineux pour lequel peu de gens auront de la sympathie. J'ai toujours pensé que cette phrase, si simple, devait occuper une place primordiale dans notre manière d'affronter les conflits. La politique n’a de sens que lorsqu’elle permet à chacun de vivre en liberté et en sécurité.

L’un des grands défis de 2024 est de pouvoir expliquer à la méduse cette compréhension de la vie et de l’œuvre des Nations Unies dans un langage que certains dirigeants sont capables ou forcés de comprendre. Comment peut-on dire cela dans le patois pervers et sophistique qu’on dit au Kremlin ? Comment exprimer cette sagesse en hébreu progressif ou en arabe avec des accents de paix ? Comment faire entendre le discours de réconciliation auprès des responsables de conflits dans d’autres régions du monde, sachant que 2023 a été une année d’accélération des multiples expressions de haine et de radicalisme ?

Nous sommes ici confrontés à deux questions qui devront être clarifiées et résolues le plus rapidement possible.

Premièrement, quiconque ne comprend pas Charlie Chaplin et la valeur de la vie ne devrait pas être à la tête d’une nation. La place des criminels de guerre est à La Haye ou devant un tribunal spécial créé à cet effet, comme cela s'est produit en Yougoslavie ou au Rwanda. Je dis cela, et je le souligne, pour qu'il n'y ait aucun doute, en ma qualité de personne qui a été à l'avant-garde de la fondation du tribunal d'Arusha, en Tanzanie, créé pour juger les principaux responsables du génocide survenu en Rwanda en 1994. Les précédents existent et les responsables des massacres en Ukraine et au Moyen-Orient les connaissent. Comme les criminels fantasment toujours, ils peuvent même penser qu’ils échapperont à ces procès. À la vitesse à laquelle les choses évoluent, ils ne devraient pas rester calmes.

Deuxièmement, le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies doit aller bien au-delà des questions humanitaires. L’aide humanitaire est sans aucun doute essentielle et ne peut être oubliée. Mais il s’agit d’une situation à court terme et précaire, car les situations de besoin sont nombreuses, les tragédies sont énormes dans diverses régions du monde et les ressources sont toujours rares. La Charte des Nations Unies concerne avant tout des solutions politiques. Le Secrétaire général doit entretenir un dialogue inlassable avec les parties et présenter sans plus tarder un plan de paix pour l'Ukraine et un autre pour la Palestine. Des plans qui s’attaquent aux racines des problèmes, qui sont fondés sur le droit international et qui soulignent courageusement les mesures politiques que le Conseil de sécurité doit envisager.

Nous devons relever les très graves défis qui nous attendent, au cours de ce qui s’annonce comme une année cruciale dans l’histoire contemporaine.

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)

Diplomacy and manifestations of force

A diplomacy with strength

Victor Angelo

 

When the United Nations was created in 1945, its founders had in mind the establishment of a supranational organization capable of resolving future conflicts in a peaceful manner, in particular those that might occur between the great powers. We were at the end of the Second World War, which had brought incredible levels of suffering and destruction. The main concern was to avoid new military confrontations. So, they established a structure that gave the primacy to diplomatic negotiations and that should prevent situations like the one that now exists around Ukraine from sliding into a new war. More than seven decades later, the founding fathers, if they were still among us, would be deeply shocked to see that the UN is completely marginalised here in this part of Europe in the crisis between Russia and the West. As it is in other geographies, where the superpowers intervene directly in the struggle for what they consider to be their vital interests.

The focus on diplomacy, regarding Ukraine and the broader issue of European security, is now taking place in other forums - in the EU, in NATO, in the OSCE in Vienna. And, above all, in bilateral discussions between the Americans and the Russians, leaving the Europeans in a secondary position, even though they are the ones who will have to pay the most important part of the bill, the cost of the decisions that will be taken. The extent of the bill remains to be defined, in economic, financial, or even military terms.

So, it is not only the UN that is left out, but also the Europeans themselves, however much they deny it. It is enough to see that there is no enthusiasm in the Kremlin to discuss a new defence architecture in Europe with the German, French or other leaders. Whether one wants to see it or not, the truth is that the Russians only believe in possible understandings with the Americans. As far as the EU is concerned, Russia is only interested in the most technologically and economically advanced member states, one by one, and only for business reasons. Only on Wednesday, Putin held a videoconference with the heads of the major Italian multinationals (Enel, UniCredit Bank, and the Generali insurance company, among others), while at the same time ignoring the proposals for détente sent to him by Macron and reinforcing the presence of his armed forces in Belarus, a stone's throw from Kiev.

It has once again become clear that we are still part of an international framework in which armed force, or at least those who have it, make the law. This has a very negative impact on the political role of the UN. It also represents a fundamental challenge for the EU, which does not have the military and foreign policy capabilities that would be required to assert its strategic views and interests. The current crisis must be turned into an opportunity to strengthen those capabilities. It is necessary to reduce Europe's double dependence - military and political - on the US just as it is essential to reduce the energy dependence of certain EU member states on Russia.

Returning to diplomacy, I recall that Louis XIV had the Latin locution "ultima ratio regum" engraved on his cannons, to remind us that heavy weaponry was "the ultimate argument of kings". In other words, for diplomacy to be effective when peace is desired, warlike preparation cannot be neglected. However, today's wars are no longer waged using only cannons: economic and financial measures, political restrictions, cybernetics, information and counterinformation are now also part of the arsenal. This is what is known as an integrated response to external aggression.  Such a response is particularly necessary when on the other side we have an autocratic regime, led by an individual who presents himself as the ultra-nationalist protector of his people and national culture, who calls opponents traitors and who does not hesitate to use armed violence, internally and externally, to achieve his personal power objectives.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 28 January 2022)

 

 

Nagorno-Karabakh

I feel so disturbed when I watch the images of the war that keeps going on between Azerbaijan and Armenia. One of the sides publishes a lot of videos showing the targeting of the other side’s military vehicles. Often, we can see the young soldiers trying to move out of the vehicle before the strike. They rarely succeed. It is too late to escape. And that is no video game. It is about young lives being wasted. Then, there are the bombings of civilian quarters. TV screens remind us that wars are full of human tragedies.

And in this case, there seems to be no serious attempt to stop the conflict. The Russians managed to have a humanitarian ceasefire declared only to be broken soon after. It would have been important if respected. It could open the door to the beginning of a political process. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

At the beginning I expressed the view that this would be a short duration flare up. Now, I think we are in it for a long while. More lives and livelihoods will be destroyed. The world is too busy with the pandemic, the economic crisis, the competition with China and the American elections to really care about a remote corner of the world that most people have no idea where to place in the world map.

It is sad. 

A war economy or just words?

You call it a war, but you keep acting as if there was no need to reorganise the entire production to win the war. When you are at war, your economy must become a war economy. If not, you are not a good leader and you cannot connect your words with the reality that must be put in place. 

Pakistan, India and Kashmir

In January 1957, the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, V. K. Krishna Menon, spoke for 8 hours, when addressing the Security Council on the situation in Kashmir. That speech remains the longest ever delivered at the UN. It was cut short, if I can say so, because Menon collapsed of exhaustion.

Compared to such feat, yesterday´s 50-minute speech by Pakistan’s Prime Minister was a brief episode. But a striking one, not because of its length – at the UN, it is considered a long speech that goes beyond 35 minutes; this year’s trend has been to have shorter interventions – but because of the words he said. He basically focused on the dispute with India regarding Kashmir. And he talked about the possibility of war between the two countries and made a direct reference to the use of nuclear weapons. Imran Khan stated that Pakistan would go for a nuclear response if there is war and his country is losing it against India.

Such assertion is most upsetting. There is indeed a serious state of cold confrontation between Pakistan and India. The Kashmir situation and Modi’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the region have brought the complexity of conflict to the fore. We have there an extremely dangerous threat to international peace and security. Khan’s words have confirmed it.

Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China. Its dramatic economic situation makes Pakistan very dependent on China’s investments and economic cooperation. China, on the other hand, sees India as a growing competitor. But I can’t believe the Chinese would encourage Pakistan to go for an armed conflict with India. They cannot imagine that such clash would reduce India’s capacity to compete. 

In my opinion, the Chinese should be encouraged to mediate in between both countries. That would have an impact on the easing of the tensions and would strengthen the international standing of China. With the accord of the two antagonistic nations, the Chinese could also bring the matter to the Security Council, to get a greater buy-in for a peaceful way forward.

It is not easy, though. The Indian Prime Minister sees the Kashmir crisis as an internal challenge, a domestic affair. He does not welcome any type of international assistance on the issue. 

That was fine until yesterday, I would retort. With Imran Khan’s dramatic speech at the UN, the issue cannot be anything else but an international matter of great concern. It must be dealt as such and with great urgency. 

A deteriorating situation around Kashmir

One of the most militarised borders in the world is the one between India and Pakistan. Men and the most sophisticated means of control stand of both sides of the line. The tension level is always very high, close to open conflict. Unfortunately, these days it is even closer. We are witnessing an extreme delicate crisis between the two countries. The reason is once again the dispute and the unresolved situation around Kashmir. I do not think we, in Europe, should take sides. But we should advise both countries to lower the pressure. We should express our deep concern with the current escalation of the conflict. And appeal to China to remain out of the problem. By taking sides with Pakistan, the Chinese are not playing the constructive role they should be playing in the region. That is not the Chinese foreign policy President Xi Jinping has pledged he would follow.

Iran and its oil

The US Government’s decision not to renew the waiver given to China, India, Turkey, Japan and two or three more countries regarding the purchase of Iranian oil is very extreme. This basically means that any country buying Iranian oil after May 1 might find itself sanctioned by the Americans. In the tradition of international relations, such decision is equivalent to an act of war against Iran and a hostile move against the countries that import petroleum from Iran. It is a matter of great concern. It must be seriously debated.

Friendly journalism

It can take months for a well-known, credible journalist to get a visa to enter Syria. Most of the times, the answer is no, no visa. Therefore, be on guard if one news person not only manages to get in but is also given a free hand to roam around as he pleases. Including to walk without a chaperon the streets of Douma, a township that remains out of reach for the UN chemical inspectors.

What do you expect from such a journalist? He is certainly a friend of the Assad circle of power. He will write stories that will go along with the regime´s narrative.

That will be highly appreciated by Assad and his supporters. And even more, if the said journalist comes from the UK or another major Western nation.

We should always keep in mind that the war is also about the way the stories are told and by whom. Propaganda is key in any war effort.  

On matters of War

War without a concomitant, serious, persistent search for a political solution to the conflict is not morally justified. It´s unacceptable state terror. It´s a crime against the people. 

Tell your story

In today´s developed and democratic societies, every political move, every key institution, every public action boils down to perception. More than the facts and the messages the political and social actors put across, what counts in the end is the way they are perceived and understood by the citizen. That´s why today´s wars are not just about fire power. Guns and bullets are still a deterrent, but not good enough. Wars, as well as any political fight, are gained and lost in the narrative that is communicated to people. 

Let´s say No to the atomic weaponry

Seventy years later, one can only hope that our political masters will be wise enough to not make use ever again on any type of atomic weapon. More. We should advocate for a ban of such armaments. That would be the ultimate test of wisdom and of a changing world.

Good news, no war

I came across this piece of news. It comes from a very sensible newspaper, very serious stuff. It is true it´s a bit old: July 1914. But it´s also very actual.

            There will be no European general war…. The six great powers – Germany, Austria and Italy, on one side, and Russia, France and Britain on the other side – cannot afford a clash of arms .… [They] will hesitate at the last moment and endeavor to adjust matters.

            Los Angeles Times, 27 July 1914

War by other means

The traditional approach to war between developed nations has now changed. We still have armies and defence institutions. They will continue to play the key role they are supposed to play: deterrence. They should therefore be fully supported. But besides dissuasion, they are of little practical use. Today, the economic and financial instruments of power play a much more effective role, if they are properly employed and if the political resolve is indeed in place. Financial measures can easily destroy value in the opponent´s camp and generate enough force for a negotiation process to start. That´s a new way of confronting the adversary. And it can be done openly – no need for deception and covert operations. Actually, it should be carried out with sufficient rhetoric. That would make sure the other side understands what´s at play and realises how important it is to yield. 

Ebola as a biological weapon?

The collective hysteria around Ebola is such that some people are already talking about the possibility of “enemy forces” being engaged in capturing the virus to make future use of it as a biological weapon. This is taking us too far. Why? What are we trying to achieve with such unfounded rumour?

And it is also a distraction when the main objective should remain to help West Africa to fight the epidemic. 

A very complex environment around President Obama's choice

As we reach the end of today, we notice that the President Obama’s military option is losing momentum in the US House of Representatives and also in the American and European public opinions. It is become a tough call for the President.

In addition, Pope Francis's letter to the G20 leaders cannot be easily dismissed. The Pope reminds all of us that there is no alternative to the crisis but through dialogue and that a military intervention will make things much more difficult.

All this is creating an environment that will be deeply against the strikes once they take place. President Obama – and François  Hollande as well – will have to deal with the consequences in and around Syria, plus with the citizens’ views in their respective countries. This will transform  any military action into a political challenge of great complexity. It will open many unknown avenues.

Syria's hell

As things stand, we can expect over the weekend some cruise missiles to be launched on Syria from war vessels sailing in the Mediterranean Sea or in the Indian Ocean. In many ways, the rhetoric in Washington, Paris and London has gone too far. The accusations against Assad on the gas deaths of last week leave little room for any other option but action by those who publicly made them. The UN Security Council is being dealt with by the British. In the international division of labour, they got the assignment. Once it becomes clear that the Council is not prepared to authorise the use of force by rejecting the British draft resolution, the unilateral approach will be more palatable to the Western public opinion.

There are many problems related to military action, in any case. Even if approved by the Security Council. Once it starts, it opens a new phase and a box of unintended consequences. This is particularly true in a corner of the world that is like a tinderbox. Therefore, those who decide to go for it should be ready for hell. And they should also have a clear end-game alternative. Unfortunately, experience has shown that we think small and never prepare for the big and complex situation that will follow.