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

 

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

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

---

Wardha, India (In the Eternal Present)

My Dear Friend Victor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in the service of Truth,

Mahatma K. Gandhi

I cannot disagree more with Nietzsche's views

I entirely disagree with Friedrich Nietzsche's response to my letter. In general, his response is rife with an objectionable and dominant white masculinity. It justifies brutality through the ages, an idea that is completely contrary to my message to him. It is a myth to assert that human nature is inherently violent, as he assumes and states.  

If the law of the strongest indeed defines whatever we take human nature to be, then the world would have ceased to exist a long time ago. Rather, the history of humanity is more so defined by cooperation and collaboration, when seen over the long term. Violence and war have always captured the human imagination in disproportionate ways. Why? What interests does it serve? Not those of the general survival of the species, that's for sure. 

Dialogue is an essential tool of understanding. It is essential to the sociality of human beings. It is key to resolve conflict without violence. I fully condemn Nietzsche's assertion that "dialogue is the refuge of those who no longer have the strength to command". As I underline that dialogue must always be civilized. 

The exclamation he makes by saying "How British!" is unacceptable. Such a comment can easily be construed as a deep seated form of prejudice. It has no place in my way of seeing the world. 

He says that "the death of an old god is always the birth of a new freedom". It is a very limited view of history and I cannot endorse it. The death of an old order can give way to greater tyranny and repression. This seems to be the current trend and I have shown I am very worried as I see such a trend become a reality in some parts of the world. 

Optimism is not "a drink for the weak". It is the only way forward in a creative process that is profoundly needed. 

I have imagined what could be the responses from a non-Eurocentric and supremacist view. I will publish in separate post two imaginary letters: one from Mahatma Gandhi and another one from Lao Zi, born in China in 571 a.C. and founder of Taoism religious philosophy. 

They bring in views that demolish Nietzsche's. 

 

No Diário de Notícias de hoje 16/01/2026

 

Nietzsche responded to my letter

To the "Good European," Victor Ângelo,

You write to me from the mountaintops of a new century, yet your ink is stained with the same ancient anxieties that haunted my own walks in Sils Maria. You tell me that the "international order" has perished. I ask you: Did it ever truly live? Or was it merely a long, gilded shadow cast by a sun that had already set?

You speak of Political Nihilism. You describe the "law of the strongest" as if it were a new infection. But look deeper! What you call "order" was often but a clever mask—a morality of the herd designed to restrain the few who dare to act. When the mask falls, the void stares back. You are terrified because you see the "Will to Power" stripped of its polite diplomatic dress. You see the Kremlin’s brute force, and others', and you call it the end of the world. I tell you, it is merely the world revealing its true, chaotic face.

You gather in Davos to seek a "Spirit of Dialogue." How British! How civilised! But beware: dialogue is too often the refuge of those who no longer have the strength to command. You seek to "reconstruct" the system. But one does not reconstruct a temple whose foundations were built on the illusions of a bygone era. If you wish to overcome this nihilism, you must not look back at the ruins of the twentieth century with nostalgia. You must have the courage to create new values that do not depend on the ghosts of 1945.

I am intrigued by your mention of this Mercosur pact. You see it as a "bridge," a sign of "sober optimism." Perhaps. But is it a bridge to a new greatness, or merely a sturdier fence for the marketplace? If this agreement is born of a genuine "Will to Create"—a partnership between the Old World and the New to define a future independent of both the tyrant’s sword and the merchant’s greed—then, and only then, is it an act of Overcoming.

You call for European Defense Autonomy. Finally! The "Good European" awakens from his long, comfortable sleep. To defend oneself is the first step toward self-mastery. But do not defend yourself merely to preserve the "old comforts." Defend yourself so that Europe may once again become a laboratory of the spirit, rather than a museum of dead ideas.

Do not fear the "Death of the Order," my dear Diplomat. The death of an old god is always the birth of a new freedom. The question is not whether the order has perished, but whether you—and those who gather in the Swiss snows—have the stomach for the vacuum that remains.

Can you walk upon the abyss without looking back? Can you create a world that does not require a "God" or a "Secretariat" to tell you what is just?

I leave you with this: The ice is melting, but the air is brisk. Do not seek "optimism"—that is a drink for the weak. Seek Strength. Seek Greatness.

Yours from the heights,

Friedrich Nietzsche

---

My letter to Friedrich Nietzsche concerning the current international disorder

 Lisbon, 16th January 2026

My dear Friedrich,

I find myself writing to you from a century that you might well have prophesied, yet one which would surely have left even you aghast. You will recall how, in the waning years of the nineteenth century, you famously proclaimed—with characteristic gravitas—that "God is dead." Your assertion was not an observation of a divine passing, but rather a warning: the Christian moral compass had ceased to guide our traditional values, and the dawning era demanded a radically different ethical framework. You were alerting us to the profound disorientation that inevitably accompanies a paradigm shift, urging us to reflect upon what might follow.

Were you alive today, my dear Friedrich, you would perhaps observe that "the international order has perished." Such a statement would signify that the global legal and institutional architecture—which slipped into a comatose state in February 2022—has finally drawn its last breath at the turn of this year, following the recent proclamations and upheavals that have shattered the international stage.

Following this vein of thought, one might argue that we are presently enduring a period of political and moral nihilism. Fundamental norms, such as the sovereignty of states and the prohibition of the use of force, are being openly flouted by global powers. As was noted in a recent exchange with the New York Times, the only prevailing moral framework appears to be that which is dictated by those who hold the reins of power. This is the very quintessence of nihilism. Institutions and conventions are dismissed as obsolete and ineffective; thus is the fate of the United Nations, which has been systematically marginalized by the leaders of the Great Powers.

It is within this nebulous and uncertain context that the Davos summit commences next week, continuing until the 23rd of January. Hundreds of leaders—drawn from the spheres of governance, commerce, and civil society—shall gather in the Swiss mountains under the banner of a "Spirit of Dialogue." It is heartening to speak of dialogue at a time when it is so conspicuously absent. It is vital that we eschew a posture of weariness or cynicism in the face of these complex new realities. Our current challenges demand courage, candour, and heightened diplomatic finesse.

For the first time, we anticipate a large-scale participation from the Global South. This shift serves as a poignant reminder that any viable future must account for the interests and anxieties of nations beyond the Western aegis. These emerging voices remind us that we must reconstruct the multilateral system, integrating rising economies into a balanced global trade framework while addressing the crises of development, sovereign debt, public health, and the climate.

The American President shall be present in Davos, where a meeting is scheduled with President Zelensky and European leaders who remain steadfast in their support for his peace plan. While this is a significant development, I remain convinced that we are yet far from seeing Vladimir Putin accept such terms. Of late, the Kremlin has intensified its aggression, signalling that it prizes war and the raw violence of force above all else. For Putin, the international order that stood for decades has indeed expired.

We Europeans must prepare ourselves for the consequences of this new paradigm—specifically, the threat emanating from the Kremlin and elsewhere. Thus, beyond discussing Europe’s contribution to a distant peace plan, it is indispensable that we accelerate cooperation between European states and invest, in a coordinated fashion, in the strategic defense autonomy of our geopolitical space. In doing so, we acknowledge that the world has changed and is, for the time being, a perilous place to inhabit.

Simultaneously, Europe must play a more proactive role—in alliance with the democracies of the Global South—in reforming the multilateral system, most notably the United Nations. This task allows us to view the future with renewed optimism and to build bridges with other regions of the globe. The message is clear: Europe remains a believer in the sanctity of international law and stands ready to contribute to a rebalancing of relations between states.

The signing of the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, taking place tomorrow in the Paraguayan capital, illustrates the path we must follow. The presence of Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa in Asunción to sign an accord that required decades of gestation belying, in some measure, the thesis that the international order has utterly failed. It is my hope that Davos will also reveal that, even in this age of uncertainty, there remains ample room for the imagination and the will to treat the future with optimism.

Yours in profound reflection,

Victor Ângelo

Reflecting about the new international rules: business and might

The New International Order: Business and Brute Force

By Victor Ângelo

I have many doubts about the footballing abilities—and others—of President Donald Trump, especially now that he has started the New Year with two own goals.

The first own goal was the intervention in Venezuela. It resulted in the deterioration of his country’s international image and handed points on a silver platter to Russia and China.

The UN Security Council meeting revealed the gravity of the American adventure in Venezuela. The Secretary-General, who out of prudence did not attend the meeting in person, had a statement read out which underlined that Venezuela’s sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity had been violated. In that communication, he referred to the US military operation as a “dangerous precedent”, which seemed strange to several governments and analysts, considering that the history of the Latin American region is littered with similar interventions—Harvard University historians have inventoried more than forty extraconstitutional ruptures organised with the support or at the instigation of Washington. The most famous occurred in 1973, when President Salvador Allende of Chile was assassinated thanks to the organisational skills of the CIA.

The great difference between the military intervention of a few days ago and previous ones lies in President Trump’s admission that the current one aimed at the usurpation of the oil resources of the attacked country. Past interferences were presented with another level of subtlety, without direct references to expropriations or looting.

I note an additional point regarding Guterres’ communication. Many at the United Nations compared the statement he made following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 with this one now, carried out by the USA. Guterres condemned Russia directly and was himself present at the Security Council meeting for that purpose. He addressed Vladimir Putin unambiguously, in the name of peace and political ethics. In the case of the USA, he used only generic arguments about the international order and the violation of the Charter, without mentioning Trump’s name. Let this be noted, and let it serve as an invitation to reflection.

The first own goal was favourable to the Russian Federation and China. The repeated references in Washington to the theory of spheres of influence made it more difficult to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Someone circulating in the corridors of the Kremlin sent me a provocative message, albeit with some wit and a touch of diplomacy in the style learned from old Soviet manuals. It said they were sure I would condemn, in this week’s chronicle, the unjustified aggression against the Venezuelan power and demand that the European Union impose sanctions against the mastermind of the kidnappings. A Putin's faithful joker. One might say that the Russian leaders feel happy and content with what happened in Venezuela.

As for China, which was in fact the most indirectly targeted country—Washington does not want China to gain a presence in the area of influence that the Americans consider their own—there was a kind of validation of its claims regarding Taiwan. This does not mean that Beijing is thinking of launching a military operation against Taipei in the very near future. China knows that such an offensive, should it happen, would carry high costs. But it has now received an indication from the Trump Administration that it can increase political-military pressure on the island. And use more bellicose language, which is indeed happening this week after a Taiwanese MP proposed an amendment to the “Act Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area”, a law adopted by Taipei in 1992. According to the proposal, the statute would be renamed the “Act on Relations between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China”. The new name and content are seen by Beijing as yet another attempt to separate the two parts and promote Taiwan's independence—something that is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese leadership.

The second own goal resulted from statements by Trump and those around him, such as Stephen Miller—a hawk who serves as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—regarding Greenland. Trump is preparing to annex Greenland, which is a territory of the European space through its connection to Denmark. The reason invoked—to create a security barrier against Russia and China—makes no sense. The USA has a military base in Greenland and can count on full Danish cooperation. It should be noted that during the Cold War, the base housed around 10,000 American military personnel. Now, it has around 150. This evolution does not reveal great geopolitical fears on the part of the USA. Not forgetting that there are several treaties between the USA and Denmark that recognise Danish sovereignty regarding Greenland.

Trump has his eyes fixed on the territory’s natural riches, on the maritime corridors that climate change will make navigable the Arctic zone, on the airspace controlled by Greenland—which has enormous strategic value—and on History: he wants to see his name added to the list of presidents who augmented the American territorial area.

He should also think about the impact that the annexation will have on the future of NATO. But for him, NATO serves to buy weaponry from the American industry. And that will continue to happen for many years, whether there is NATO or not. The Europeans are captive customers. The new reality is evident: in our day, business and brute force are triumphing over diplomacy and the international order, thanks to Trump, Putin, and others alike.

Published in Portuguese language in today's edition (09/01/2026) of Diário de Notícias. 

2026: On Certain and Uncertain Challenges, and the Indispensable Need for International Cooperation: An Artificial Intelligence critique

 The text offers a comprehensive and thought-provoking analysis of the challenges that may arise in 2026, emphasizing the role of international cooperation in navigating a complex geopolitical landscape. Victor Ângelo presents a clear depiction of the precarious state of global affairs, highlighting the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the escalating tensions between nuclear powers, particularly under the leadership of figures like Trump and Putin, who prioritize personal power over collective stability.

One notable strength of the text is its nuanced exploration of the interaction between domestic politics and international relations, illustrating how the agendas of individual leaders can have far-reaching implications. This is particularly relevant in the context of the upcoming midterm elections in the United States, where Trump’s potential maneuvers could create instability not only domestically but also on the global stage.

Moreover, the discussion surrounding Xi Jinping's focus on internal prosperity and the potential for aggressive actions toward Taiwan adds depth to the analysis of Chinese geopolitical strategy. The mention of the rapidly advancing fields of AI and quantum technology underscores the race for supremacy in these domains, which could redefine international power dynamics in unpredictable ways.

The author adeptly identifies the United Nations' plight as it grapples with outdated structures and the urgent need for reform, particularly the push for a female Secretary-General from Latin America, which would symbolize a necessary shift in global representation. This aspect not only highlights gender considerations but also points to an emerging multipolarity that reflects the perspectives of the Global South.

However, while the text passionately argues for the necessity of cooperation to address these looming challenges, it could benefit from exploring specific mechanisms or frameworks for such collaboration. Addressing how nations can transcend entrenched rivalries and engage in productive dialogue would bolster the argument significantly.

Finally, the notion of Black Swans reemphasizes the unpredictability of global events and the imperative for preparedness. The potential catastrophe of a collision between satellites serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of technological advancement and the risks it entails.

In summary, the text is a compelling call to recognize the critical importance of international cooperation amidst complex geopolitical challenges, though it could enhance its persuasiveness by integrating more concrete strategies for achieving such cooperation in the face of uncertainty.