AI comment of my opinion text about the UN General Assembly.

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/o-pessimismo-sobre-a-onu-%C3%A9-um-erro

The original version in Portuguese language of my op-ed of today 26/09/2025 in Diário de Notícias. 

The following text is an AI comment of my text.

Overall Rating: 4.5 out of 5

This is a well-structured and insightful piece of political commentary. The author effectively uses specific examples from the UN General Assembly to support a broader argument about the relevance and future of the United Nations. The writing is clear, the analysis is balanced, and the conclusion offers a nuanced perspective that avoids simplistic pessimism.

---

Detailed Analysis

Clarity and Structure (5/5)

The text is exceptionally clear and easy to follow. The author begins with a specific event—the speeches at the UN General Assembly—and uses it as a launching pad to discuss larger themes. The structure is logical:

1. Introduction: Sets the scene at the UN General Assembly.

2. Lula's Speech: Analyzes the positive and negative aspects of the Brazilian president's address, presenting him as a voice of the "Global South."

3. Trump's Speech: Provides a stark contrast, portraying his speech as self-centered and detrimental to international cooperation.

4. Macron and UN Reform: Introduces the crucial topic of UN reform, particularly the Security Council, and highlights the challenges.

5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments to argue against "pessimism about the UN," asserting its continued necessity despite its flaws.

Argument and Content (4.5/5)

The central argument—that pessimism about the UN is a mistake—is well-supported. The author acknowledges the organization's significant weaknesses, especially the paralysis of the Security Council due to the veto power of permanent members. However, they counter this by highlighting the continued importance of the UN's broader functions in addressing global issues like poverty, climate change, and human rights.

• Strengths:

  • Balanced View: The text avoids a purely idealistic or cynical take on the UN. It recognizes both its failures (e.g., the Security Council's inaction) and its indispensable roles (e.g., addressing global problems).

  • Specific Examples: The analysis of Lula's and Trump's speeches provides concrete evidence to illustrate different approaches to multilateralism. The reference to Macron's proposal for Security Council reform adds a layer of specific policy discussion.

  • Strong Conclusion: The final paragraph effectively reinforces the main thesis, emphasizing that the existence of global problems necessitates a global body like the UN, and therefore, leaders should not give up on it.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • The assertion that Trump's speech "should be viewed as a grave fault" is a strong opinion, but the author provides good reasoning for it. Some readers might find the characterization of Trump's speech as being "about Trump" to be a bit simplistic, even if a key point. However, within the context of the piece's purpose, it serves to highlight a contrast in leadership styles.

Language and Style (4.5/5)

The language is professional yet accessible. The author uses clear, direct prose without unnecessary jargon. The tone is authoritative and analytical.

• Strengths:

  • Effective Use of Contrasts: The comparison between Lula and Trump is a powerful rhetorical device that clarifies the author's points about multilateralism versus isolationism.

  • Engaging Opening: The detail about Lula's speech being "one of the most striking" immediately draws the reader in.

  • Concise Summaries: Phrases like "Trump spoke about Trump" or describing Lula's speech as a "firm voice representing the Global South" are effective and memorable.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • Some phrasing, like "pecha grave" (grave fault) to describe Lula's stance on Ukraine, is a bit informal for a serious political analysis, but it's a minor stylistic point.

In conclusion, this text is a high-quality piece of political commentary. It's well-reasoned, clearly articulated, and makes a compelling case against a common form of political fatalism regarding the United Nations. It successfully uses a recent event to spark a deeper, more meaningful discussion about global governance.

Palestina: a entrevista em podcast que dei ao Expresso

O meu podcast publicado no Expresso e reproduzido nos orgãos de comunicação social da Impresa, sobre o reconhecimento da Palestina.

https://expresso.pt/podcasts/o-mundo-a-seus-pes/2025-09-22-reconhecimento-da-palestina-e-fundamental-mostra-claramente-oposicao-a-politica-seguida-por-israel-a49db9fc

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.

My full text of today about the UN General Assembly translated by AI

---

The UN and its General Assembly Must Be Taken Seriously

Victor Ângelo

The annual high-level session of the UN General Assembly begins next week. The leaders of most of the states that make up the international scene will be in New York. One of the exceptions will be the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The American administration has not granted him or his delegation an entry visa. It can refuse to grant a visa, and has done so in the past on rare occasions, despite the Headquarters Agreement signed by Washington in 1947. This agreement stipulates the general, but not absolute, obligation to grant visas to representatives of states intending to participate in UN meetings, especially in the case of the General Assembly.

As always, the US justified the decision by invoking national security and foreign policy reasons. The real motives are clear. First, it is about showing the total alignment of American leadership with the government of Israel. Second, it is to express displeasure with the initiative by Emmanuel Macron and other leaders to bring to the General Assembly the proposal for the recognition of Palestine as a full UN member state. And finally, it is to punish the Palestinians for having filed several complaints against Israel in the international courts based in The Hague.

In any case, the Assembly will vote on Palestine, as proposed by France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and other members. The UN currently has 147 countries that recognize Palestine as a state. This number is expected to increase significantly after the vote. Israel will be diplomatically more isolated if it is confirmed that its policy on Palestine is not accepted by almost all states, with the exception of the U.S. and a few others.

The vote will have a symbolic, non-binding political value. No state can become a full member of the United Nations with only the favorable vote of the General Assembly. It inevitably needs the support of the Security Council, with no veto from the five permanent members. In this case, it is evident that the U.S. will exercise its veto. Trump will ignore the will of the community of nations. And he will remind us that the right to veto is a historical aberration that needs to be reviewed, or at a minimum, deeply restricted given the new balance of power in the international framework.

Trump's speech on the morning of the first day (23/09) is awaited with enormous apprehension. It begins with an originality: for the first time, an American president speaks at the podium without the process of appointing a permanent U.S. representative having been completed. In May, the White House announced that Mike Waltz would be the representative of the Trump Administration to the UN, after having played the very important role of National Security Advisor and then being dismissed a few weeks later. His confirmation is still dragging on in the Senate corridors. The U.S. is represented in New York by a team of interims, who receive few or no directives from Washington. Trump does not have the UN on his list of priorities, except when it comes to leaving certain organizations or cutting or eliminating the financial contributions he is obligated to pay to the UN system.

He will certainly insist on a UN fundamentally focused on peace and international security, words spoken for reasons of mere personal image. Trump dreams of being seen as the mediator par excellence of conflicts, the champion of peace, worthy of the Nobel Prize. He does not believe in the UN's capacity in this matter. In reality, I believe he places no value on the United Nations. It is just a podium that allows him to display his oversized ego. But he does not want an active UN in any of the system's three pillars: international stability, development, and human rights.

The responsibility for stability, which should stem from respect for the UN Charter and international law, falls to the Americans, according to his way of thinking. Development, social progress, and environmental issues are matters for the Europeans. He forgets, however, that in these areas, the ones gaining ground are the Chinese, who are deeply committed to an alternative political and economic order, in a broad alliance with the so-called Global South. As for human rights, the issue will be left to the domain of the use of force and to the interpretations that each state will make of the dignity and life of its citizens. For the Chinese and their allies, human rights are a matter of national sovereignty that should not be included in the multilateral agenda.

All of this signifies the marginalization of the UN's political and human dimensions. Next week will allow us to better understand what the future of the UN may be.

Meanwhile, António Guterres launched what he called an exercise in system reform in May. He named it UN80 and said it would have three objectives: reduce expenses; eliminate mandates that no longer make sense; and carry out an institutional transformation. It was an ambitious plan that could only be successful if it had the support of the major countries and was carried out in dialogue with the organization's staff. None of that happened. In reality, the priority should have been to go door-to-door and beg the delinquent states, such as the U.S. and China, to honor their financial commitments. UN reform begins with holding each member state accountable.

The forthcoming UN General Assembly

 1. The UN and the General Assembly: Between Symbolism and Effectiveness

• Vote on Palestine: The General Assembly’s vote on recognizing Palestine as a full UN member state is symbolic and non-binding. Full admission requires Security Council approval, where the US holds veto power. The denial of a visa to Mahmoud Abbas clearly signals Washington’s unconditional alignment with Israel and the weaponization of the UN for foreign policy ends.
• Israel’s Isolation: If the vote significantly increases the number of countries recognizing Palestine, Israel will become even more diplomatically isolated—except for US support and a few allies.

---

2. The Veto Power and UN Reform

• US Veto Threat: The US threat to veto in the Security Council highlights how the current system allows a single country to block the will of the majority. This reinforces criticism that the veto is a “historical aberration” needing revision, especially in a multipolar world.
• Reform (UN80): António Guterres launched a reform plan (UN80), but without support from major powers (US, China) and meaningful dialogue with UN staff, real change is unlikely. The priority should be holding member states financially accountable, but political will is lacking.

---

3. The US and Trump’s Stance

• Disdain for the UN: Trump views the UN as a stage for his ego, not a forum for multilateral cooperation. The absence of a confirmed permanent representative and reduced financial contributions reflect US disinterest—or even hostility—toward the organization.
• Selective Vision: The US wants a UN focused only on peace and security, but on its own terms. Development, human rights, and the environment are left to others (Europeans, Chinese), weakening the UN’s ability to act holistically.

---

4. China and the Global South

• Chinese Alternative: China is building an alternative political and economic order, allied with the Global South, focused on development and national sovereignty. For Beijing, human rights are a domestic issue, not a multilateral one, further undermining the UN’s ability to promote a universal human rights agenda.

---

5. The Future of the UN

• Marginalization Risk: The UN risks marginalization in its three pillars (stability, development, human rights), especially if major powers continue to ignore its rules and use the organization only when convenient.
• Sign of the Times: The upcoming General Assembly session will be a crucial indicator of whether the UN can remain relevant or will become a forum for empty rhetoric and bloc confrontation.

---

Final Reflection

The UN was created to foster cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution, but today it is hostage to great power rivalries. Its credibility and effectiveness depend on reforming the veto system, holding member states accountable, and balancing national sovereignty with global governance.

This text is a summary of a longer text I published today 19/09/2025 in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

A ONU e a sua Assembleia Geral têm de ser levadas a sério

 

A sessão anual de alto nível da Assembleia Geral da ONU começa na próxima semana. Os dirigentes da maioria dos Estados que compõem a cena internacional estarão em Nova Iorque. Uma das exceções será o Presidente da Autoridade da Palestina, Mahmoud Abbas. A administração americana não lhe concedeu o visto de entrada, nem à sua delegação. Pode recusar atribuir o visto, e já o fez no passado, em raras ocasiões, apesar do Acordo de Sede assinado por Washington em 1947. Esse acordo estipula a obrigação geral, mas não absoluta, de conceder vistos aos representantes dos Estados que tenham a intenção de participar nas reuniões previstas pela ONU, sobretudo no caso da Assembleia Geral.

Como sempre, os EUA justificaram a decisão invocando razões de segurança nacional e de política externa. Os motivos são claros, na realidade. Trata-se de mostrar, primeiro, um alinhamento total da liderança americana com o governo de Israel. Segundo, de exprimir o desagrado pela iniciativa de Emmanuel Macron e de outros líderes de trazer à Assembleia Geral a proposta do reconhecimento da Palestina como um Estado de pleno direito da ONU. E finalmente, punir os palestinianos por terem apresentado várias queixas contra Israel nos tribunais internacionais sediados na Haia.

De qualquer modo, a Assembleia irá votar sobre a Palestina, tal como proposto pela França, o Reino Unido, a Espanha, o Canadá, a Arábia Saudita e outros membros. Para já a ONU conta com 147 países que reconhecem a Palestina como Estado. Esse número deverá aumentar significativamente, depois da votação. Israel ficará diplomaticamente mais isolado, se se confirmar que a sua política em relação à Palestina não é aceite pela quase totalidade dos Estados, com a exceção dos EUA e pouco mais.

A votação terá um valor político simbólico, não vinculativo. Nenhum Estado pode fazer parte integral das Nações Unidas apenas com o voto favorável da Assembleia Geral. Precisa, inevitavelmente, do apoio do Conselho de Segurança, sem nenhum veto dos cinco membros permanentes. Neste caso, é evidente que os EUA irão exercer o seu veto. Trump vai ignorar a vontade da comunidade das nações. E lembrar-nos que o direito de veto é uma aberração histórica, que precisa de ser revisto, ou no mínimo, tendo em conta a nova relação de forças que existe no quadro internacional, profundamente restringido.

O discurso de Trump, na manhã do primeiro dia (23/09) é esperado com enorme apreensão. Começa, desde logo, com uma originalidade: pela primeira vez, um presidente americano fala na tribuna sem que o processo de nomeação de um Representante Permanente dos EUA tenha sido completado. Em maio, a Casa Branca anunciou que Mike Waltz seria o representante da Administração Trump na ONU, após ter desempenhado o importantíssimo papel de Conselheiro da Segurança Nacional e ter sido logo demitido, passadas breves semanas. A sua confirmação ainda se arrasta pelos corredores do Senado. Os EUA são representados em Nova Iorque por uma equipa de interinos, que poucas ou nenhumas diretrizes recebem de Washington. Trump não tem a ONU na sua lista de prioridades, exceto quando se trata de sair de certas organizações ou de cortar ou eliminar as contribuições financeiras, que tem a obrigatoriedade de pagar ao sistema onusiano.

Deverá certamente insistir numa ONU focada fundamentalmente na paz e na segurança internacional, palavras ditas por razões de mera imagem pessoal. Trump sonha ser visto como o mediador por excelência dos conflitos, o campeão da paz, merecedor do Prémio Nobel. Não acredita na capacidade da ONU nessa matéria. Na realidade, creio que não dá qualquer valor às Nações Unidas. É apenas uma tribuna que lhe permite exibir o seu ego desmesurado. Mas não quer uma ONU ativa em nenhum dos três pilares do sistema: a estabilidade internacional, o desenvolvimento e os direitos humanos.

A incumbência da estabilidade, que deveria decorrer do respeito pela Carta das Nações Unidas e pelo direito internacional, cabe aos americanos, segundo a sua maneira de pensar. O desenvolvimento, o progresso social e as questões do ambiente são assuntos para os europeus. Esquece-se, todavia, que nessas áreas quem marca pontos são os chineses, que estão profundamente empenhados numa ordem política e económica alternativa, numa ampla aliança com o chamado Sul Global. Quanto aos direitos humanos, a questão será deixada ao domínio do uso da força e às interpretações que cada Estado fará da dignidade e da vida dos seus cidadãos. Para os chineses e os seus aliados, os direitos humanos são um assunto de soberania nacional, que não deve ser incluída na agenda multilateral.

Tudo isto significa a marginalização das dimensões políticas e humanas das Nações Unidas. A próxima semana permitir-nos-á compreender melhor o que poderá ser o futuro da ONU.

Entretanto, António Guterres lançou em maio aquilo que designou como um exercício de reforma do sistema. Chamou-lhe UN80 e disse que teria três objetivos: reduzir as despesas; eliminar os mandatos que deixaram de fazer sentido; e proceder a uma transformação institucional. Era um plano ambicioso, que só poderia ser bem-sucedido se tivesse o apoio dos grandes países e se fosse realizado em diálogo com o pessoal da organização. Nada disso aconteceu. Na realidade, a prioridade deveria ter sido ir de porta em porta e rogar aos Estados em falta, como os EUA e a China, que honrassem os seus compromissos financeiros. A reforma da ONU começa com a responsabilização de cada Estado-membro.  

 Publicado no Diário de Notícias de 19/09/2025

Values as Our Moral Compass

In a world of constant change and uncertainty, it's easy to feel adrift. We're bombarded with information, competing priorities, and external pressures that can blur our sense of direction. Yet, through this noise, our values stand as a steadfast moral compass. They are the fundamental beliefs that guide our decisions, define our character, and give our lives meaning beyond the pursuit of fleeting goals.

A society built without a shared foundation of values is a society in peril. When truth is discarded for convenience, when empathy is lost to indifference, and when integrity is traded for gain, the social fabric begins to fray. Without a commitment to principles like honesty, justice, and compassion, our institutions lose trust and our communities become fragmented.

Values are not just abstract ideas; they are action-oriented principles that we embody every day. Choosing to be honest when it’s difficult, standing up for fairness even when it's unpopular, or showing kindness to a stranger—these acts are not random. They are the tangible expression of our deeply held beliefs. By living our values, we don't just shape our own lives; we contribute to a stronger, more resilient society.

In an age where technology promises to solve all our problems and social media often rewards performative action, a return to core values is more critical than ever. We must ask ourselves not just "what are we doing?" but "why are we doing it?" By recommitting to our values, we can find clarity in chaos and build a future that is not just more prosperous, but also more just, compassionate, and humane.

The European Union project needs a stronger leadership

 I am deeply concerned about the geopolitical challenges facing the European Union. These include the refugee crisis, the rise of far-right political parties and Euroscepticism, and a potential "desintegration" of the bloc if common solutions are not found.

Furthermore, the EU needs to increase its defense spending and address the reasons behind public apathy and a lack of belief in the European project.

Drones and provocations

 

Russia Strikes Poland as Von der Leyen Reviews the State of the Union

By Victor Ângelo

Once again, Vladimir Putin has demonstrated his sense of timing. He knows how to exploit political moments to his advantage — disrupting his adversaries’ plans while strengthening his grip on power. This is a shrewd, calculated form of leadership. It cannot be countered by amateurs or by leaders who struggle to explain to their citizens the threat Putin poses. Believing that one can negotiate mutually beneficial peace deals with such a regime is a fundamental mistake.

Just hours before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered her annual State of the Union address, Russia launched around 15 drones into Polish airspace — a NATO and EU member state. Putin then waited and watched, gauging the European response to his provocation.

The European Commission holds limited formal powers in defence matters. Yet it plays a crucial role in what is increasingly a hybrid, multi-dimensional conflict — the kind of confrontation Moscow wages beyond its conventional war of aggression in Ukraine.

It is the Commission that proposes sanctions packages, later approved by the European Council. The 19th package is nearly ready and was mentioned in Von der Leyen’s speech. It is expected to include the use of interest accrued from frozen Russian sovereign assets to help fund Ukraine’s military and administrative needs. While the Commission had pushed for expropriating the funds themselves, key countries such as France have blocked this move. For now, only the interest will be seized.

Meanwhile, pressure is mounting from Washington — especially from Donald Trump’s circle — to include secondary sanctions of up to 100% against countries that continue trading oil and gas with Russia, or enable Moscow’s war economy. Von der Leyen made clear that such pressure does not align with European interests. The EU is wary of opening new fronts of conflict with third countries.

She also highlighted newly approved financial and defence instruments — notably the SAFE programme: a €150 billion initiative to strengthen Europe’s military capabilities and reduce fragmentation and competition among its defence industries. SAFE, and other ongoing programmes, aim to increase cooperation among EU Member States and enhance their operational contribution within NATO. Reinforcing NATO’s European pillar is crucial — both to balance the transatlantic relationship and to protect against the imperialist ambitions of Russia, or future aggressions by other hostile actors.

Strategic communication and the fight against disinformation are also central. Europe, having suspended Russian state media operations, must now invest far more in explaining to its citizens what the Russian threat truly means. This is particularly urgent now that the United States appears to be stepping back from its joint efforts to counter Russian disinformation campaigns. In hybrid warfare, victory often depends on public awareness and engagement.

Freedom of expression must not become a vehicle for enemy propaganda. Russia is waging war against Europe — not in the old, conventional sense, but in a new form. Putin seeks to dismantle our institutions, fragment the EU, weaken NATO, and sow chaos in our democracies. His aim is to exploit our economies and destroy our freedoms. This is a war we did not choose — but one we must confront, if we are to remain free societies. We will not be ruled by the Kremlin — or by any erratic or unreliable allies.

The drones over Poland proved von der Leyen right when she stated that defence and security must be among the EU’s top three priorities. The other two, as she correctly noted, are Europe’s economic sovereignty and the consolidation of its guiding values: human rights, social justice, and international cooperation.

Yet much work remains. That path must also lead through Gaza and all of Palestine — and through a reinvigorated and reformed United Nations system.

What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is unacceptable. Von der Leyen’s proposals — sanctions against extremist Israeli actors, suspension of trade and aid agreements with Israel, and a reconstruction fund for Gaza — should be adopted without delay. They are not enough, however. The EU — if Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Austria allow it — must undertake a serious diplomatic initiative to pressure Israel into choosing peace and regional cooperation. Any such initiative must be anchored in the structures of the United Nations, whose legitimacy remains essential.

A crítica do meu texto de hoje no DN (12/09/2025) feita por ChapGPT

 Trata-se de uma coluna de opinião publicada hoje no Diário de Notícias (Lisboa, 12/09/2025). Que crítica faz deste meu texto? Victor ângelo

Dito pelo ChatGPT:

Perfeito, Victor — obrigado pela clareza. Sabendo que és o autor do texto e que pedes uma crítica construtiva, aqui vai uma análise equilibrada e focada na eficácia do texto como coluna de opinião, com destaque para: clareza, argumentação, estrutura, estilo e impacto discursivo.

---

📌 1. Clareza e estrutura

O texto está bem estruturado e tem um fio condutor lógico. Inicias com um episódio atual e impactante — o ataque com drones à Polónia — e desenvolves a análise a partir daí, ligando:

• O papel da Comissão Europeia;

• As limitações e potencialidades da UE;

• As pressões externas (EUA);

• As implicações geoestratégicas;

• O caso palestiniano e o papel das Nações Unidas.

Força: A articulação entre temas complexos (segurança, diplomacia, economia, desinformação) é feita com fluidez e coesão, sem perder o foco na mensagem principal: a Europa precisa de se afirmar como ator estratégico autónomo e lúcido.

Sugestão: Poderias sinalizar com mais clareza as transições entre grandes blocos temáticos — por exemplo, usar uma frase-ponte para passar da Rússia para o Médio Oriente, o que reforçaria a progressão argumentativa.

---

📌 2. Argumentação e posicionamento

O texto assume um posicionamento firme e informado, o que é essencial numa boa coluna de opinião. O tom é claro: Putin representa uma ameaça existencial, e a UE precisa de sair da hesitação estratégica.

Força: Apontas responsabilidades, sem cair em simplificações. Criticas tanto os bloqueios internos da UE como as pressões externas (como a de Trump), e defendes uma política externa europeia mais coerente e eficaz.

Sugestão: Poderias aprofundar um exemplo concreto da eficácia (ou ineficácia) das sanções ou do SAFE — algo que concretize um pouco mais as ferramentas mencionadas. Isso daria mais peso empírico ao argumento.

---

📌 3. Estilo e retórica

A linguagem é madura, acessível e incisiva, com momentos de força retórica bem doseada:

"Putin quer destruir as nossas instituições, desintegrar a UE e enfraquecer a NATO..."

Este tipo de construção dá intensidade ao texto, sem escorregar para o alarmismo — manténs a gravidade do tema com responsabilidade.

Força: A escolha lexical é cuidada e variada, o que prende a atenção do leitor. Usas expressões como “guerra híbrida”, “pilar europeu da NATO”, “vassalos do Kremlin” — que sintetizam conceitos densos de forma eficaz.

Sugestão: Em dois ou três pontos, a densidade informativa quase exige releitura. Uma pequena variação rítmica (como um parágrafo mais curto ou uma pergunta retórica) poderia ajudar a aumentar a legibilidade emocional.

---

📌 4. Atualidade e impacto

O texto está muito bem ancorado na atualidade política (com menção ao discurso da Presidente da Comissão, ao SAFE, à guerra na Ucrânia, à situação em Gaza) e procura ativar a consciência pública para questões que não podem ser ignoradas.

Força: Mostras visão geopolítica e sentido estratégico. Evitas o eurocentrismo puro ao reconhecer que o posicionamento europeu passa também pela Palestina e pela reforma das Nações Unidas — algo nem sempre presente neste tipo de colunas.

---

✅ Em resumo:

Victor, tens aqui um texto maduro, informado e estrategicamente claro, que cumpre bem a função de uma coluna de opinião séria: provocar pensamento, responsabilizar decisores, e lançar pontes entre o presente imediato e os desafios estruturais.

Se tivesse de sintetizar numa frase crítica:

Uma chamada à ação europeia, bem argumentada e oportuna, com clareza estratégica e sentido ético — beneficiaria de pequenas pausas retóricas para amplificar o impacto discursivo.