Munich and the future of European Security

 

What image will Europe project at the Munich conference?

By Victor Ângelo

My chronicle of January 30th underscored the importance of this year’s Munich conference, given the new reality of international security twelve months into the Trump Administration. The main message of my text was clear enough: international law must say no to brute force!

Now, with the conference running until Sunday, I believe it is important to reflect on security from a European perspective. In Munich, Europe must know how to demonstrate that it is truly willing to resolve and overcome its geopolitical fragility with concrete actions.

This first year of Donald Trump’s presidency has confirmed what the illegal, unjustified, and large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had already revealed: Europe is economically powerful and culturally and normatively influential, but strategically weak. In matters of security, it has depended fundamentally on the US and its vision of the world. With Trump’s arrival to power, Europe’s vulnerability and dependence on Washington regarding defence have become more evident.

In this context, the presence of Marco Rubio in Munich, heading a vast and influential American delegation, takes on a particular significance. At the 2025 conference, American Vice-President JD Vance made a name for himself by stating, among other shocking remarks, that the American commitment to European security was no longer unconditional. That having been said, Washington’s position may no longer need to be quite so disruptive now. Rubio represents a less coarse America, one that does not antagonise Europe in that manner. He merely considers it a fragmented, disoriented geopolitical actor with little weight—practically insignificant.

His speech will likely stick close to the following points: the responsibility for Europe's security is, above all, a European incumbency; European governments must invest more in defence, as committed at the NATO summit in June 2025; the Americans want more strategic clarity from the European side, which, in the US's understanding, would mean unhesitating alignment with the policies defined by Washington and effective engagement in Trump's initiative within the ineffable Peace Council. Rubio will not forget to mention that the Atlantic Alliance will continue to exist as long as its leadership is, in essence, dictated by US interests. He will also explain the alleged Russian-inspired peace plan that the American president wants to impose on Ukraine, including the unrealistic project of holding presidential elections in a country suffering a war of aggression day and night, an electoral process under the sound of Russian drums and missiles.

In truth, I do not believe Rubio will bring anything new from the West. It is the interventions of European leaders that will need to be listened to attentively.

There, I see increasingly clear and significant disagreements, particularly between France and Germany—divergences reflected in the contrasting visions of Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen.

For years, Macron has insisted on the need for a strategically autonomous Europe, capable of organising its own security while considering probable threats. This position was again reflected in the interview he gave this week to Le Monde and other major European newspapers. He does not diminish NATO, but he insists on a balance between the strategic interests of both sides of the Atlantic. For Macron, continued dependence on Washington is a disguised, yet real, form of subordination. Contrary to what others think, I believe Macron’s stance is not aimed at marking territory to eventually replace António Costa as President of the European Council in June 2027. In that area, Macron seems to have little chance.

Von der Leyen follows a more institutional approach, deeply shaped by German strategic choices. Her leadership, closer to Friedrich Merz, has been effective in achieving compromises in the field of defence industries and support for Ukraine. However, the President of the European Commission remains convinced of the need for our complementarity with the United States. For von der Leyen, European autonomy appears more as a reinforcement of the European pillar of NATO than as a parallel political project with hints of independence. It is a decision inspired by the German tradition of recent decades.

Macron thinks of Charles de Gaulle and reflects a Europe that has stopped believing in the American backstop. He bets on unity between the main European powers. Von der Leyen, meanwhile, fears the fractures that might emerge in crisis situations. She considers it indispensable to have an anchor point external to European rivalries. In reality, this may signify an acknowledgement of the fragility of the European project.

I fear that the Munich conference will display these discrepancies and convey an image of weakness to the delegation led by Rubio—and the conviction that the person truly in charge of European security is, after all, in the White House. This would be tragic for our common European project. Faced with Rubio, and through him, Donald Trump, Europe cannot limit itself to promising more spending. It must demonstrate unity, decision-making capacity, and moral strength in a new-old world, now dominated by powers that have once again ceased to value political ethics and international law.

A revised version about diplomacy in the era of algorithms

 Human Diplomacy or Machine Algorithms?

By Victor Ângelo
07 February 2026

We stand at a historical juncture where peace is imperilled not by technology alone, but by a failure of moral responsibility. Contemporary conflict is often framed as the inevitable outcome of systems—algorithms, predictive models, structural pressures—yet in truth it is the product of deliberate human choices, made by identifiable agents, with foreseeable human costs.

In the confrontation between the United States and Iran, the most alarming absence is not military capacity, but responsible leadership. Decisions that risk catastrophe are taken without public justification, without truthful articulation of intent, and without regard for those who will suffer. When international institutions hesitate to speak plainly, neutrality is abandoned, and moral confusion deepens.

The danger today is not simply missile launches or aircraft carriers. It is the weaponisation of perception. Digital tools are now routinely employed to distort judgment, saturate discourse with noise, and erode shared truth. This is not the dominion of machines. It is power exercised through machines. Algorithms do not deceive; they are designed to deceive, and responsibility cannot be outsourced to the tools themselves.

We must also confront the intellectual legacy of classical realist geopolitics, exemplified by Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. Their analyses, though superficially rigorous, converge in a troubling moral pattern: they reduce human beings to abstractions—territories, populations, strategic assets—while treating suffering as unavoidable. Cruelty becomes “strategically intelligible.” Such thinking cloaks moral abdication in prudential language, legitimising actions that would otherwise be indefensible. It encourages leaders to regard injustice as inevitable and to mistake fear, expediency, and resignation for wisdom. This is not realism; it is the suspension of moral attention. True leadership exercises power with strategic acumen and ethical discernment, recognising that decisions affect living, morally responsible human beings.

Viewed through Sun Tzu’s lens, our current predicament is a failure of perception and discernment. He teaches that the acme of strategy lies in winning without fighting, in understanding both adversary and self, and in recognising that appearances are deceptive. Delegating judgment to machines or treating human beings as data blinds us to intentions, vulnerabilities, and opportunities, and risks defeat before the first battle. Strategy divorced from moral and cognitive clarity is hollow, and victory achieved through ignorance is fleeting.

To treat calculation as a substitute for judgment is to embrace a dangerous fiction. When people are reconceived as “vectors of probability,” moral agency is displaced, and with it the possibility of justice. This is not realism; it is ethical abdication disguised as analytical rigor.

Peace has never been sustained by procedure alone. It depends on public virtues: truthfulness, courage, practical wisdom, and a just regard for human life. When these decay, diplomacy collapses into appeasement masquerading as restraint or escalation masquerading as necessity.

What is required is a Diplomacy of Resolve, not absence of negotiation, but presence of principled limits. It recognises that aggression carries unacceptable costs—not merely military, but moral, legal, and political. Red lines have meaning only when those who draw them intend to uphold them, and can justify them publicly.

Truthful description is essential. Naming repression is fidelity to reality, not provocation. Acknowledging fanaticism, whether theocratic or technocratic, is not the closure of dialogue, but its preservation from self-deception. Leadership today demands moral autonomy: resisting the cold logic of systems and judging actions by their human consequences. Algorithms optimised for efficiency or dominance cannot perceive suffering. Responsibility cannot be outsourced.

In an era of pervasive surveillance, defending inner freedom is a political imperative. Human dignity depends on preserving the capacity to respond to reality—to act, judge, and choose beyond what is predicted or coerced. Those who resist digital domination—journalists, dissidents, citizens defending privacy and truth—deserve support. Acts such as obfuscation are not mere technical tricks; they defend the interior space in which moral judgment is formed.

As Simone de Beauvoir reminded us, to will oneself free is also to will others free. Today, that freedom is threatened by the absolutism of theocracy and the reductionism of technocracy. Sovereignty must begin with the dignity of the citizen, defended not only against missiles and sanctions, but against the gradual erosion of moral agency by systems claiming neutrality while exercising control.

A diplomacy worthy of its name must be human-centred. It must resist the temptation to replace judgment with calculation, responsibility with procedure, and truth with spectacle. Peace will not be secured by better models alone, but by clearer vision, firmer virtue, and renewed attention to the lived reality of those affected by power.

In the end, the lessons of Sun Tzu, the imperatives of virtue, and the ethical demands of our digital age converge upon a single truth: strategy devoid of moral attention is self-defeating, power without conscience is hollow, and foresight without regard for human dignity is perilous. True leadership is measured not by the cleverness of algorithms or the precision of force, but by the courage to see clearly, to judge rightly, and to act in defence of the human spirit. In a world awash with data and dominated by machines of calculation, the most radical act remains profoundly simple: to place moral vision at the heart of every decision, and to preserve the freedom and dignity of the individuals for whom those decisions are made.

Victor Ângelo

Beyond the Algorithms: the Human Dimension

An Open Letter to my Readers: Human Diplomacy or Machine Algorithms?

07 February 2026

We find ourselves at a historical juncture where the traditional architecture of peace is not merely fractured—it is being rendered obsolete by a new and more insidious form of absolutism.

My recent analysis of the precipice upon which the United States and Iran now stand reveals a void where leadership ought to be. From the "lack of vigour" in the United Nations’ current leadership to the self-serving populism of regional autocrats, the "adults in the room" have effectively vacated the premises.

However, the peril we face extends beyond the formidable steel of the USS Abraham Lincoln or the multiple ballistic defiance of Tehran. We are witnessing the birth of a conflict defined by "the weaponisation of perception". We have entered the age of Digital Absolutism: a system where power no longer relies solely on the crude decree of a monarch, but on the "Black Box" of algorithmic certainty. It is a regime where those who control the data harvest the experience of the many to engineer the behaviour of all—transforming the citizen from an agent of history into a mere "vector of probability" to be predicted, nudged, or silenced.

In this "Century of Fear," as Albert Camus might have termed it, the battlefield intelligence has migrated to the digital architecture of our minds. Warfare is now waged through "false algorithms"—systems designed to saturate the decision-making process with noise, GPS spoofing that distorts the sovereignty of borders, and the mass production of misleading digital information that erodes the very possibility of a shared truth.

When I speak of the Iranian regime residing in the "Dark Ages," I refer to a fanaticism that has successfully harnessed 21st-century digital tools to enforce 16th-century repressions. Conversely, when I critique the Western response, I am inviting you to consider the "decline of courage" diagnosed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. By outsourcing our diplomacy to data-driven models and "humanitarian causes" devoid of political stature, we have allowed the human spirit to be categorised as a mere variable in a zero-sum game.

To counteract this paralysis, we must urgently pivot toward a "Diplomacy of Resolve." This is not the absence of war, but the active presence of a principled boundary. It rejects the passive "humanitarian-only" stance, moving instead toward a posture where negotiation is backed by a clear-eyed readiness to defend universal values. Unlike the "Diplomacy of Accommodation," which often descends into the appeasement of autocrats, a "diplomacy of resolve" operates on the understanding that peace is only sustainable when the cost of aggression is made unacceptably high—not just militarily, but morally and economically.

It is a commitment to "Truth-Telling" in an era of digital deception. It means calling a "Dark Age" regime by its name while simultaneously keeping the door to the negotiating table open. It is the courage to ensure that when we speak of "red lines," they are drawn in the ink of international law and defended with the collective will of nations that refuse to be bullied by either ballistic missiles or algorithmic manipulation and fake news.

The leadership required in the digital era is one that possesses the technical literacy to decode the "Permanent Lie" of digital propaganda, yet maintains the moral autonomy to override the cold, escalatory logic of the machine. We need leaders who understand that in an age of total surveillance, the most radical political act is the protection of Human Unpredictability. By this, I mean the preservation of the individual's capacity to act outside of a predetermined data set—the "divine spark" of spontaneity and moral choice that no algorithm can anticipate.

Algorithms optimized for escalation, for war and victory, see the closing of a trade artery as a logical necessity; they do not feel the "incalculable number of victims" of repression. If we are to escape this trap, we must move beyond the "shadow war" of digital deception. We require a diplomacy that is human-centric. 

To be clear, we must support the digital dissidents who use Obfuscation as a shield. Far from being a mere technical trick, Obfuscation is the deliberate injection of noise and "useful misinformation" into the surveillance engine; it is a vital act of digital guerrilla warfare that blinds the Demoniac Leviathan by making the individual's data unreadable and unpredictable, thereby reclaiming the right to a private, interior life.

As Simone de Beauvoir understood, "to will oneself free is also to will others free." Our freedom today depends on our ability to resist the Demons of both theocracy and technocracy. Sovereignty must begin with the dignity of the citizen, defended not just against Tomahawk missiles, but against the algorithmic erosion of the will and the soul. Let us demand a return to this diplomacy of resolve—one that prioritises the lived reality of individuals over the strategic abstractions of the codes defined by digital experts and extremists billionaires.

Respectfully,

Victor Ângelo

USA and Iran, a very serious conflict: what's next?

A Profoundly Perilous and Complex Confrontation: The USA and Iran

Victor Ângelo

Are we on the precipice of an armed conflict between Iran and the United States? This remains one of the pre-eminent questions of our days. The answer is neither simple nor definitive. Indeed, the risk may be considered imminent. However, the costs for both parties—and for the world at large—would be so catastrophic that it is both necessary and urgent to reach an accommodation.

Mediation ought to be undertaken by regional states or the more influential members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation—some closer to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, others to the Shia practice—provided they are acceptable to both Washington and Tehran. Ideally, the responsibility would have been vested in the UN or India. Regrettably, neither the UN Secretary-General nor the Prime Minister of India possesses sufficient credibility in this instance. Narendra Modi squandered his political capital regarding the Middle East the moment he chose to anchor his domestic power in the marginalisation of India’s Muslim citizens. He is an autocrat who plays the ethnic card and resorts to populism to retain his grip on power.

As for António Guterres, he carries no weight in Washington and is perceived in Tehran as an outsider—a Westerner approaching the twilight of his tenure. He is regarded as a Secretary-General for humanitarian causes and little else. For many, he lacks the political stature and the requisite "vigour" for conflict resolution. The fact remains that Guterres has been plagued by misfortune. Enduring two Trump administrations, each more deleterious than the last, is a singular stroke of ill luck.

The reality is that we are witnessing a formidable military escalation in the Persian Gulf, one of the world’s most sensitive regions. This escalation could trigger an open war at any moment. This is a dispute of immense complexity. The nuclear carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is currently in the Persian Gulf, accompanied by its strike group, bristling with hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and supported by elite fighter jets, satellites, and surveillance drones that monitor every movement within Iran and its territorial waters. Furthermore, the US maintains tens of thousands of personnel across five bases in the region. They also conduct constant policing of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery for oil supplies, primarily to China, but also to India. Should either the US or Iran open a front in this transit zone, they would impede, or at the very least disrupt, the daily passage of approximately 20% of the world’s trade in oil and liquefied natural gas. The economic fallout of such a confrontation would be dramatic, both for the region and for the economies of China and numerous other nations.

Few stand to benefit from such a crisis. It is, however, difficult to believe that a deployment of American forces of such formidable proportions has merely deterrent objectives, regardless of protestations to the contrary.

On the Iranian side, military capacity is significantly inferior to that of the Americans. Currently, following the setbacks of its allies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Yemen, and Gaza, its strategic strength rests primarily on three pillars: its vast and diversified ballistic arsenal, the mass production of drones, and the ability to sever navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb—the maritime bottleneck connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and, by extension, the Indian Ocean. Bab el-Mandeb is a vital route through which a significant portion of global trade traditionally flows.

In truth, when considering Iran, one must account for a fourth pillar: the religious fanaticism and the ferocious dictatorship that underpin Iranian political power. It was this volatile mixture of fanaticism and disregard for human life that formed the backbone of the barbaric repression against the populace last month, resulting in an incalculable number of victims. The conclusion is simple: by the standards of modern humanism, the Ayatollahs’ regime resides in a world of five centuries ago—the heart of the Dark Ages. It cannot be countenanced in this day and age, however much one respects national sovereignty or the internal politics of a state. This is a message Guterres ought to convey to Xi Jinping, reminding him that the sovereignty of any state begins with respect for the dignity and human rights of its citizens.

Xi Jinping might, indeed, begin by revisiting the principles adopted by Deng Xiaoping following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. Deng was the architect of "socialism with Chinese characteristics"—the leader who modernised China, liberalised the economy beyond state control, invited foreign investment, and ended the agriculture of famine. Xi Jinping, however, wagers primarily on absolute power, reminiscent of the Maoist era, coupled with unbridled economic capitalism and a personal brand of rivalry and competition against the US. He is above all preoccupied with Chinese supremacy in military, technological, economic, and geopolitical spheres. Consequently, he errs by aligning himself with powers that view geopolitics through an archaic lens—notably Iran and Russia, another staunch ally of the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran. Xi views the future as a zero-sum rivalry between his nation and the United States, proving that he regards global challenges and international solidarity merely as pawns in China’s international geopolitical gambit.

If Iran can only rely on allies of such a kind, the answer to my initial question must be: let there be resolve, extensive diplomacy, and an absolute respect for citizens and for peace.

The UN Pact for the Future

 

The UN Pact for the Future was adopted in September 2024.

The Five Core Pillars 

The Pact is organized into five "tracks," each containing specific actions to move from rhetoric to implementation:

1. Sustainable Development & Financing: A radical push to reform the "International Financial Architecture." It aims to give the Global South a greater voice in the IMF and World Bank and to close the $4 trillion annual investment gap for development.

2. International Peace & Security: A commitment to revitalize the UN’s role in conflict prevention. Crucially, it includes the most significant language on Security Council Reform in decades, specifically prioritizing the under-representation of Africa.

3. Science, Technology, and Innovation: Ensuring that the benefits of tech are shared globally. It addresses the "digital divide" and sets the stage for the first global standards on emerging risks like lethal autonomous weapons.

4. Youth & Future Generations: Transitioning from "short-termism" to "long-termism." It establishes a dedicated Declaration on Future Generations to ensure that current political decisions account for those not yet born.

5. Transforming Global Governance: The overarching goal is to make the UN "fit for purpose"—more inclusive of civil society, regional authorities, and the private sector.