Two murders. Both heinous. Both utterly reprehensible and avoidable!
Such acts of violence are the direct consequence of the inflammatory and extremist rhetoric has created a climate of political hatred. In today’s America, tolerance and respect for differing views have all but vanished. The prevailing logic is binary: “you’re either with me or against me.” Most disturbingly, this mindset is actively encouraged by leading political figures – on both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump, in particular, is known for responding to dissent with personal insults and hostility.
This culture of relentless antagonism, finger-pointing, and dehumanisation of political opponents is laying the groundwork for further bloodshed.
When will Americans – especially their leaders – relearn that Republicans and Democrats are not enemies, but adversaries in a democratic system?
This erosion of civility is now evident even in how death is treated.
Consider the following: Two murders. Two radically different reactions.
1️⃣ Melissa Hortman was shot dead in her own home. Beyond local responses in Minnesota, the national reaction was muted. No widespread outrage. No mobilisation. Just a few brief references.
2️⃣ In contrast, Charlie Kirk’s death was swiftly politicised. Within hours, blame was cast without regard for facts. A martyr was manufactured. Kirk, who had publicly defended the outdated notion that some gun deaths were justifiable, was himself killed by gunfire. The irony is striking – especially in light of the biblical warning in Matthew 26:52: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
⚖️ Here lies the crux: outrage in America is no longer rooted in principle. It is dispensed according to partisan allegiance. That is not democracy.
This double standard – mourning one death in silence while lamenting another with fervour – is emblematic of authoritarian regimes. It undermines the very foundations of democratic society.
As Hannah Arendt warned, hypocrisy erodes trust, breeds cynicism, and opens the door to violence. It is a precursor to totalitarianism. When hypocrisy becomes the norm, complicity becomes a crime.
🛑 We must reject selective condemnation of violence. Because when moral consistency is lost, democracy itself begins to decay.
➡️ I unequivocally condemn all politically motivated murders—regardless of whether they originate from the left or the right. No ideology nor political stance justifies the taking of a life.
=====
Dois assassinatos! Ambos hediondos. Ambos completamente reprováveis e dispensáveis!
Este tipo de comportamento é o resultado directo das retóricas inflamadas e extremadas que originaram o clima de ódio político. Na América contemporânea, a tolerância e o respeito pela opinião contrária tornaram-se raridades. Impera a lógica binária do “ou estás comigo, ou contra mim”. O mais preocupante é que esta postura é incentivada pelos principais protagonistas políticos – de ambos os lados – com destaque para Donald Trump, que reage com insultos à mais leve discordância.
Este ambiente de constante antagonismo, de dedo apontado e de desumanização do adversário, está a abrir caminho para mais mortes.
Quando é que os americanos – sobretudo os seus líderes – vão reaprender que republicanos e democratas não são inimigos, mas apenas adversários políticos?
E este comportamento, na minha opinião, indigno, também já se verifica no respeito pela morte. Ora vejamos: Dois assassinatos, duas respostas diferentes.
1️⃣ Melissa Hortman foi morta a tiro na sua própria casa. Além das reacções no Estado do Minnesota, a nível nacional praticamente assistiu-se ao silêncio. Nenhuma indignação nacional. Nenhuma cruzada. Apenas umas breves referências.
2️⃣ Com Charlie Kirk, o cenário foi o inverso. Horas após a sua morte, esta foi instrumentalizada. A culpa foi atribuída antes de se conhecerem os factos. Erigiu-se um mártir.
Kirk, que defendia a ideia ultrapassada de que algumas mortes por armas de fogo eram justificáveis, acabou por ser baleado. Há uma ironia trágica nisto — até à luz do aviso bíblico em Mateus 26:52-56.
⚖️ O ponto essencial é este: a indignação nos Estados Unidos (e não só) deixou de se basear em princípios. Passou a ser distribuída segundo a lealdade partidária. Ora, isso não é democrático.
Este duplo e dúbio comportamento de lamentar a perda de uma vida em silêncio enquanto outra é lamentada aos gritos é próprio dos comunistas. É uma prática que mina os alicerces da democracia.
Recordando Hannah Arendt: a hipocrisia gera perda de confiança, fomenta o cinismo e abre caminho à violência – funcionando como antecâmara do totalitarismo. Em suma, a hipocrisia corrói a democracia.
🛑 Não podemos aceitar que a violência seja condenada de forma selectiva. Porque quando a hipocrisia se torna norma, a cumplicidade transforma-se em crime.
➡️ Condeno inequivocamente todos os assassinatos com motivações políticas – independentemente de serem de esquerda ou de direita. Nenhuma ideologia ou posição política justifica tirar uma vida.
| CARVIEW |
(in)Transmissível Na base do conhecimento está o erro
Latest
Nothing justifies murder
Posted by VFS | 2025-09-11 | Categories: cidadania, conhecimento, democracia, ironia, liberdade, opinião, política, valores | Tags: charlie kirk, democracy, democrat, hypocrisy, life, melissa hortman, murder, politics, republican, values | Leave a comment
A Reflection on Power, Principle, and the Erosion of Constitutional Norms
In times of national crisis, it’s not unusual for executive power to expand. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln wielded extraordinary authority, but once peace returned, the Supreme Court reasserted its role and rebalanced power. That moment stands as a testament to the checks and balances enshrined in the U.S. Constitution — a system designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch.
Today, however, we are witnessing a troubling reversal. The Supreme Court appears to be extending immunity to a former President who, many argue, abused his authority — and not in the context of war or existential threat. This shift undermines the very principles that once safeguarded American democracy.
It is my view that much of this transformation can be traced to a strategic turning point: the replacement of Justice Antonin Scalia. Mitch McConnell’s maneuvering in that moment reshaped the Court’s ideological balance, with long-lasting consequences.
Scalia was undeniably conservative and deeply religious, yet he maintained a clear boundary between personal belief and constitutional interpretation. He upheld the Rule of Law and respected the separation of Church and State — principles rooted in the vision of the Founding Fathers. Today’s Court, by contrast, increasingly allows faith-based reasoning to override legal precedent and constitutional clarity.
I admired Scalia not for his ideology, but for his discipline. He was a devout Catholic who never let his convictions cloud his judicial responsibilities. That integrity is sorely missed. The justices appointed by Donald Trump have not demonstrated the same restraint, and their rulings reflect a departure from foundational democratic norms.
It is painful to watch the legacy of the Founders fade. When belief eclipses law, and immunity shields power from accountability, the United States risks losing its status as a full democracy.
Donald Trump insists he is not a dictator. But his actions — and the institutional protections now afforded to him — suggest otherwise.
In order words, why does Trump act as a tyrant?
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-08-29 | Categories: conhecimento, democracia, ditadura, ironia, liberdade, opinião, política, valores | Tags: Antonin Scalia, democracy, dictatorship, freedom, Trump | Leave a comment
Religious war?
Forget Trump and Vance.
These are real architects of America’s future.
And with their radical vision and faith-driven agenda, a religious conflict may be looming on the horizon.
#religion
#democracy
#war
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-08-24 | Categories: catástofre, conhecimento, democracia, ditadura, knowledge, religião, unidade | Tags: democracy, future, Kevin Roberts, Peter Thiel, religion, Stephen Miller, USA | Leave a comment
It Can’t Happen Here
In an era of rising populism and political polarization, Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here feels less like historical fiction and more like a mirror held up to modern society. Written during the rise of fascist regimes in Europe, Lewis imagined a United States where democracy collapses under the fomenting of fear, nationalism, patriotism, and charismatic authoritarianism.
The story follows Doremus Jessup, a small-town newspaper editor in Vermont, who watches in disbelief as Senator Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip wins the presidency. Windrip promises prosperity and traditional values. However, once in office, he dismantles democratic institutions, empowers a paramilitary force, and plunges the country into dictatorship.
➡️ Now, imagine swapping Windrip for Donald Trump. Is the comparison provocative?
Didn’t Trump administration withdraw from international climate agreements, rolled back environmental protections, and invoked emergency powers to expedite fossil fuel infrastructure? Didn’t also targeted wind power, reversed regulations designed to promote clean energy and falsely linking turbines to marine life deaths.
Trump’s executive orders echoed Windrip’s fictional playbook.
And like Windrip, Trump positioned himself as the champion of the “forgotten man,” railing against elites, immigrants, and the press. His rhetoric often blurred the line between populism and authoritarianism, and his actions – such as declaring national emergencies to bypass legislative processes – raised alarms about the erosion of democratic norms.
➡️ For over two decades, I have maintained that democracy is the most fragile and transient of political regimes.
Jessup’s passing from observer to underground resistance fighter is a powerful reminder about democracy fragility. Lewis explores how propaganda, political apathy, and blind patriotism can erode freedom faster than we think.
The irony of the title – It Can’t Happen Here – is the novel’s central warning. Lewis challenges readers to confront the dangerous assumption that tyranny is always someone else’s problem. His message? Complacency is the enemy of liberty.
Nearly a century later, Lewis’s words still resonate. In a world where truth is contested and division runs deep, It Can’t Happen Here urges us to stay vigilant, speak out, and never take democracy for granted. And if history teaches us anything, it’s that the question isn’t whether it can happen here – but whether we’ll recognize it when it does.
It is more common to see references to Orwell’s 1984. Personally, I believe that It Can’t Happen Here provides a more accurate description of what is unfolding in the United States. Yet, regrettably, populism is sweeping through Western democracy, which makes it even more paramount to recall both works.
I think MAGA, GOP (by inaction), ICE, Thiel, and the Heritage Foundation are central to what is happening in the US.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-08-20 | Categories: artigo, conhecimento, democracia, estado, gestão pública, ironia, liberdade, opinião, política, unidade, valores | Tags: democracy, dictatorship, freedom, future, MAGA, Trump, USA | Leave a comment
Can a Regional War Reshape Global Energy Order?
The escalating confrontation between Israel and Iran no longer can be seen as a regional theatre – it has sent shockwaves through the global energy system and diplomatic architecture. What began as a precision air campaign has evolved into a broad strategic challenge, exposing the structural fragilities of energy interdependence and political alliances.
Launched on June 13, Israel’s Operation Rising Lion struck over thirty military and nuclear installations across Iran, including sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Framed by Defense Minister Yoav Gallant as a preventive move, the offensive aimed dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and paralyze its regional deterrence capability. Among the most impactful strikes was the one on the South Pars gas field—the world’s largest natural gas reserve, jointly exploited by Iran and Qatar. The attack triggered not only physical damage, but a diplomatic tremor.
China, which imports nearly 30 percent of its crude oil from Iran, reacted swiftly. Beijing expressed “deep concern,” reflecting the strategic threat the conflict poses to China’s energy security. Energy markets echoed the geopolitical anxiety. Oil prices jumped more than 2% in the wake of the attacks. European capitals, already navigating energy diversification post-Ukraine, are bracing for possible long-term disruption. Annalena Baerbock’s prior warnings – “energy security is now geopolitical stability” – have gained renewed weight.
The Israeli campaign also included strikes on residential compounds in Tehran allegedly housing IRGC senior personnel and nuclear scientists. Iran’s retaliation came in the form of missile and drone attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa. Most were intercepted by Israel’s defense systems, but the regional temperature remains volatile.
Yet it is China’s posture – and President Xi Jinping’s carefully worded response – that offers a lens into broader systemic pressures. Iran is more than just a petroleum supplier; it is a corridor in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and a symbolic partner in China’s evolving “Global South” strategy. A prolonged conflict in Iran not only threatens these geopolitical investments but also challenges China’s model of influence built on infrastructure, neutrality, and economic connectivity.
Xi’s call for de-escalation, emphasizing sovereignty and regional stability, is not merely diplomatic protocol – it reflects China’s urgent need for the maintenance of the Iranian theocratic regime. Any instability puts BRI nodes at risk and could ripple into neighboring regions vital to Chinese trade and security. I would not be surprised if discussions in Beijing about accelerating energy independence, including increasing production of synthetic fuel and coal-based alternatives, have increased.
Still, Xi faces dilemmas. China has marketed itself as a neutral powerbroker, a role underscored by its facilitation of the 2023 rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Openly siding with a beleaguered Iran would risk undermining that credibility. And despite reports of military cargo movements, Beijing appears unwilling to commit to overt intervention, acutely aware of the risks of entanglement with the United States or destabilizing its global economic interests.
Meanwhile, the broader strategic bloc once anchored in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing (and Pyongyang) shows signs of fracture. Russia, consumed by the war in Ukraine, has remained passive. The anti-Western alternative order reveals its fragility as military alliances once seen as counterweights to the West are proving more symbolic than substantive. Despite the disruptions of Trump-era foreign policy, the liberal international order appears to be exhibiting renewed resilience.
Israel’s military campaign has, intentionally or not, exposed how brittle informal security pacts can be when not backed by economic depth or political cohesion. For China, this war may mark a pivot point: either recalibrate its global posture in favor of domestic stability, or risk being drawn into a confrontation with consequences it cannot fully control.
The Israel-Iran war is no longer a regional affair. It has become a global stress test of energy systems, diplomatic agility, and strategic credibility. Xi’s balancing act, driven less by doctrine than by pragmatism, affirms a timeless principle of realpolitik: power without stability is perilous. Strategic restraint and diplomatic flexibility remain paramount, but in this theatre, military power is once again center stage. Yet, there is still room for diplomacy – including the kind that transcends “blood and iron.”
This conflict also holds profound implications for the field of international relations, particularly for those familiar with the theories of Richard Rosecrance and Paul Kennedy. Rosecrance rightly argued that global affairs cannot be interpreted through a single lens, advocating instead for a dual framework that accounts for both economic (commercial) and military factors. Kennedy, by contrast, misjudged the conditions under which states like Japan might reassert military power—assuming it would stem from diminished commercial influence. Existential security concerns have proven to be far more decisive triggers. Even for the Japanese development of a sixth-generation stealth fighter.
As the contours of 21st-century international relations evolve, this conflict may force theorists and practitioners alike to expand the analytical toolkit. Dual lenses are indispensable. Yet in today’s strategic landscape, energy, not merely as resource, but as strategic architecture must be recognized as a third indispensable pillar – a driver of conflict, a lever of influence, and a linchpin of global order.
So, the answer is yes. A regional conflict has the power to fundamentally alter the global energy landscape. The Israel-Iran confrontation highlights the profound interconnection between regional military tensions and the broader framework of global energy systems, supply chain stability, and strategic geopolitical alliances. Including the identification of these as symbolic or determinant.
Post-Scriptum:
The United States has launched an attack on Iran using GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs – munitions specifically designed to penetrate the fortified depths of Iran’s nuclear facilities. As reported by the Times of Israel, this strike had been previously rehearsed during the Biden administration.
This development underscores the enduring reality of a unipolar international order. The United States continues to assert itself as the decisive global superpower, with neither China nor Russia currently positioned to effectively challenge Washington’s strategic dominance on the world stage.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-06-20 | Categories: defesa, direito internacional, opinion, politics, relações internacionais, segurança | Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, china, Donald Trump, energy, IR, iran, israel, USA, War, Xi Jinping | Leave a comment
Sobre a governação em tempos de turbulência emocional
“Se o governo fosse uma questão de vontade de qualquer lado, a vossa, sem dúvida, deveria ser superior. Mas o governo e a legislação são questões de razão e de julgamento, e não de inclinação.”
Num momento da história caracterizado pelo desassossego do fervor revolucionário, Edmund Burke foi uma voz firme no meio dos clamores por mudanças radicais. Estas palavras, proferidas aos eleitores de Bristol em 1774, demonstram uma crença inabalável na governação não como um mero reflexo da vontade (ou, acrescento, de favorecimento) popular, mas como um dever solene alicerçado no julgamento e deliberação fundamentados.
Vivia-se uma época de inquietude e excitação. As colónias americanas oscilavam em rebelião e as ideias que desencadeariam a Revolução Francesa já fervilhavam. As reivindicações de liberdade e de autogoverno ribombavam nas praças públicas, nos panfletos e nos debates parlamentares. A questão da governação já não era académica — era urgente, controversa e até visceral. E muitas eram as vozes que procuravam substituir as estruturas sociais com declarações, inflamadas, de novas liberdades, frequentemente alimentadas pela paixão em vez da prudência.
Porém, Burke, permaneceu firme na sua convicção de que a liderança não se resumia apenas ao canalizar dos desejos flutuantes das massas. Para ele, um Estadista não era um mero delegado enviado para fazer eco do sentimento público, mas antes um depositário de princípios superiores à gratificação imediata. E também pensava que a democracia devia ser temperada pela sabedoria, orientada pela experiência daqueles a quem era confiada a sua preservação — em vez de submissa e de irresponsavelmente ditada pelos impulsos populares, ou por quem destes se aproveitava.
Perante o alastrar dos radicalismos revolucionários, Burke temeu as consequências da devoção desenfreada e do caos da governação reduzido a inclinações inconstantes em vez de fundamentos duradouros de lei e justiça. A sua serenidade e clareza de pensamento contrastou com a tempestade que varreu a Europa nos anos seguintes. Ao opor-se aos elementos mais extremos da Revolução Francesa, defendeu a ideia de que um governo estável deve resistir à atracção da paixão momentânea, moldando a política através da razão e não da rebelião.
Estas palavras, expressas num momento de profunda agitação ideológica, deviam servir como lembrete de que a governação exige mais do que emoção: requer previsão, equilíbrio e um compromisso com o que é justo, mesmo quando isso vai contra a maré das exigências populares.
Actualmente vivenciamos idênticos tempos de turbulência emocional. Hoje, mais do que nunca, as palavras de Edmund Burke devem ser recordadas.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-06-01 | Categories: conhecimento, democracia, gestão pública, liberdade, opinião, política, valores | Tags: coragem, decência, gestão pública, governação, política, responsabilidade, valores | Leave a comment
Um novo bipartidarismo?
Será?
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-05-20 | Categories: curiosidades, ironia, opinião, política | Tags: ironia, partidos, política, portugal | Leave a comment
Ler mais
Este é um dos problemas estruturais do nosso país. Falta de cultura e de conhecimento. Apesar da massificação do ensino, poucos são aqueles que têm algum conhecimento transversal (e mesmo na sua área de formação sabe Deus).
Ora, aliado a outra aposta dantesca – a igualdade de resultados – criámos uma juventude insegura que é incapaz de ouvir uma crítica, reagindo como se a mesma se tratasse de um insulto (fazendo o que pode para silenciar opiniões contrárias), e que julga ser apenas detentora de direitos.
E o problema principal nem é esse. Devido a políticas que optaram pelo atingir de níveis estatísticos em vez de apostar na exigência o pensamento crítico diminuiu imenso. Vamos pagar um preço enorme por isto. Especialmente num tempo em que o conhecimento vai ser fundamental para a sobrevivência. A todos os níveis!
O que vivenciamos é algo parecido com os treinadores de bancada no futebol. Enfim…
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-05-10 | Categories: catástofre, conhecimento, democracia, gestão pública, ironia, política, responsabilidade | Tags: conhecimento, ensino, exigência, futuro, leituras, ler, livros, responsabilidade | Leave a comment
Dalton Trumbo
Now that Trumpism has resurged with full force, posing a threat to freedom of speech and thought, I update a reflection from four years ago.
Dalton Trumbo – a name I once encountered only fleetingly – became more significant as I delved into research on the harrowing manifestations of McCarthyism.
The blacklist stands as a grim example, a tool of suppression that marked one of the darkest chapters in American history. McCarthyism itself, a potent form of political fundamentalism, distorted the very principles upon which the United States was founded. Despite its claims, it did not protect democracy but rather undermined it, twisting the ideals that so many sacrificed for, as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently recognized.
Why revisit Dalton Trumbo now? Because history demands our attention. Too often, people neglect the lessons of the past, allowing injustices to repeat. Revisiting history is crucial – not merely as an exercise in remembrance but as a safeguard against revisionism that distorts reality for ideological gains, whether from the right or the left.
Today’s political climate bears an unsettling resemblance to the McCarthy era. While identity politics is often attributed to the left, the right also employs its own version, advocating for purism and puritanism in ways that restrict free expression, including of thought. Take, for instance, Stephen Miller’s recent White House conference – a stark example of this trend.
Trumpism is not merely shaking the foundations of the U.S. Constitution; its impact reverberates throughout Western civilization.
In such times, the defense of freedom must be a daily effort. Each day we must have an unwavering commitment to the principles that define democratic societies.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-05-08 | Categories: conhecimento, democracia, justiça, liberdade, opinião, segurança, valores | Tags: black list, censura, dalton trumbo, demagogia, liberdade, McCarthyism, mentalidade, responsabilidade, trumpism | Leave a comment
Mirror reflections
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it (…) it thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
There is debate over whether Goebbels actually made this statement. However, given his role as Minister of Propaganda and a critical examination of historical sources, the likelihood that he did is significant. Regardless, the phrase is closely tied to the concept of the “Big Lie”, an issue discussed by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
Yet, Hitler was not the originator of the concept. He wielded it with the Jewish people as his target, but before him, the Bolsheviks had already embraced and systematically implemented the “Big Lie” concept, embedding it into their ideological framework in certain areas.
➡️ The key takeaway is this:
the methodology, rhetorical strategies, and instruments used by political extremes – whether right or left – often mirror each other. This similarity also offers insight into their share characteristics.
Over the past four decades, political discourse has increasingly moved away from moderation, giving way to the rise of left- and right-wing populism. As a result, politics has shifted from being a space for rational debate to a battleground defined by extremism and intolerance.
In such a polarized climate, it is hardly surprising that conservatives are once again employing the concept of the “big lie.”
Nothing new. This recurrence only reinforces a familiar pattern in history – one where humanity fails to learn from past mistakes, repeatedly falling into the same traps.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-05-05 | Categories: conhecimento, democracia, ditadura, ironia, liberdade, opinião, valores | Tags: ditadura, extremos, history, hitler, mentir, mussolini, propaganda, stalin | Leave a comment
Tarifas à bragas!
Para alguns esclarecidos, tarifas não são proteccionismo.
Nem algum conservador será capaz de as implementar.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-05-04 | Categories: conhecimento, curiosidades, ironia, opinião, política, relações internacionais, responsabilidade | Tags: bragas, comércio externo, conservadorismo, falta de vergonha, protecconismo, relações internacionais, tarifas | Leave a comment
Há Bragas e … bragas!
Já lidei com ambos. E há efectivamente diferenças. Os primeiros são capazes de reconhecer os erros e até de pedir desculpa pelos posts que fizeram.
Os outros, são como os marxistas. Não têm vergonha na cara.
Mesmo depois de terem percebido que se precipitaram no apoio dado a Donald Trump, e de reconhecido isso, permanecem incapazes de reconhecer os vis juízos de valor que fizeram sobre terceiros.
Na maior parte das vezes, não vale a pena responder aos bragas pequenos. Até por se julgarem os donos absolutos da verdade. É só dar tempo ao tempo.
Existirão sempre pobres coitados que preferirão saber o preço de tudo ao valor de qualquer coisa.
A vergonha não os deixará. É a vida!
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-05-04 | Categories: conhecimento, curiosidades, democracia, ironia, opinião, valores | Tags: bragas, falta de vergonha, mentalidade, opinião, valores | Leave a comment
Anacronismos trumpianos
Este texto é especialmente dedicado aos tudólogos que pululam nas redes sociais, esses arautos do efémero que apregoam nas redes sociais dislates desprovidos de substância aos seguidores, mas que não passam dos principiais pregadores da burrice e da ignorância.
O mercantilismo trumpriano é apenas uma das facetas do trumpismo. Este, no seu conjunto, é um retrocesso histórico e civilizacional para uma época onde a lei do mais forte imperava.
Donald Trump promove exportações, desencoraja importações e defende medidas protecionistas ao comércio para proteger a economia dos EUA. Por outras palavras, Trump é um mercantilista. Mas a sua convicção no mercantilismo não é de agora. Em 1988, entrevistado por Oprah Winfrey, respondendo ao que faria diferente na política externa dos EUA, Trump disse que faria com que os aliados pagassem “uma quota justa à nação devedora dos EUA, e o que se verificava no mundo não era comércio livre”.
Vou fazer um breve enquadramento para mais à frente expor as dissonâncias das medidas mercantilistas trumpianas. O mercantilismo foi uma teoria e um sistema económico que surgiu na Europa durante o início do período moderno (séculos XVI a XVIII), concebido para maximizar as exportações e minimizar as importações de uma economia, visando a acumulação de recursos dentro do país e a utilização desses recursos para o comércio unilateral. Era, portanto, uma política económica nacionalista que procurava reduzir um eventual défice e/ou atingir um excedente da balança corrente.
As políticas mercantilistas caracterizaram-se pela aplicação de medidas como tarifas e outras barreiras comerciais para proteger o comércio e indústria nacionais, incentivando simultaneamente as exportações. Não surpreendentemente, até como sinais próprios daquele tempo, esta tipologia de medidas teve como consequência a expansão territorial procurando garantir, incluindo pela força, o acesso aos recursos. Os mercantilistas acreditavam que as colónias não existiam para benefício dos colonos, nem dos colonizados, mas antes para a benfeitoria das metrópoles, particularmente como meio de produção de bens em que estas detinham monopólios. E, por fim, é conveniente não esquecer que os mercantilistas também acreditavam que o volume global do comércio era inalterável. O sistema económico era um jogo de soma zero (o lucro de uma das partes implicava a perda da outra). Não admira que o tempo tenha levado ao fim do mercantilismo e ao início do comércio livre. Porém, o mais importante é realçar que não é possível dissociar a política mercantil da Grã-Bretanha da Revolução Americana. Se isto não é uma ironia, não sei o que será.
Já anteriormente referi a fixação de Trump com William McKinley. O que Trump nunca refere são os resultados da política de tarifas de McKinley.
Há mais de 100 anos, o então congressista McKinley, Presidente da Comissão de Recursos e Meios (Ways and Means Committe) da Câmara de Representantes, apresentou uma lei (Tariff Act of 1890) que aumentou as tarifas para uma média de 50%. A lógica subjacente à mesma era básica: se os produtos estrangeiros passassem a ser mais caros, os americanos comprariam mais produtos nacionais. Ao fazê-lo, alimentariam a expansão económica. Estando os EUA, num nível proto-industrial e numa fase de transição económica, o objectivo era proteger a indústria e os trabalhadores da competição externa.
É inegável que esta lei estimulou o crescimento dos sectores protegidos. Contudo, ao desencadear tensões comerciais, provocou a retaliação de outros Estados-nações. Os preços dos bens de consumo aumentaram atingindo duramente a classe média e baixa americana. Resultado? Nas eleições intercalares de 1890, os republicamos sofreram uma derrota brutal. Perderam 83 congressistas, entre os quais McKinley, e a maioria na Câmara dos Representantes. Porém, este não mudou de ideias e assim que foi empossado Presidente dos EUA (4 de março de 1897), convocou uma sessão especial do Congresso para rever os impostos alfandegários. 20 dias depois, sancionou a Tarifa Dingley, a maior tarifa proteccionista da história americana até então.
Penso que há outro aspecto da presidência McKinley que agrada a Trump. Foi com McKinley que os EUA começaram a ser um império. Já em 1890, alguns republicanos sonhavam com a anexação do Canadá, acreditando que a pressão económica seria um meio para esse fim. No entanto, o efeito foi o contrário. Os nacionalistas canadianos não gostaram da coerção e aprofundaram os seus laços com o Império Britânico. Apesar desse “revés”, os EUA anexaram o Havai e, após a vitória na Guerra hispano-americana, através do Tratado de Paris, adquiriram as Filipinas, Guam e Porto Rico, garantindo também influência sobre Cuba.
Em 2025, para além de imitar as políticas tarifárias de McKinley, que diz Trump sobre o Canadá? E sobre o uso de força militar como instrumento para ter o controlo do Canal do Panamá e da Gronelândia? Por muito que possam ser alegadas semelhanças entre as circunstâncias económicas proto-industriais de 1880 e as pós-industriais de 2020, algo é inquestionavelmente distinto e factual no mundo contemporâneo:
- O colonialismo acabou;
- O contexto do comércio internacional, baseado em cadeias de abastecimento globais profundamente integradas é diferente e mais complexo;
- Até o Gold Standart Act, assinado por McKinley em 1900, foi abandonado por Nixon em 1973.
Já há muito tempo que a história comprovou as consequências do mercantilismo. Tal como também o fizeram as ideias de Adam Smith, as vantagens comparativas de Ricardo, a teoria de Heckscher-Ohlin, o teorema de Stolper-Samuelson, a nova teoria do comércio de Krugman. Trump é dos poucos que não aprendeu as lições da história.
O mercantilismo trumpriano é apenas uma das facetas do trumpismo. Este, no seu conjunto, é um retrocesso histórico e civilizacional para uma época onde a lei do mais forte imperava e onde havia mais intervencionismo estatal, menos concorrência e menos liberdade.
Não admira que seja um anacronismo!
Post-Scriptum:
Sempre houve intervencionismo estatal. Isso não é novidade. Mas as decisões de Trump revelam o mesmo tipo de socialismo que ele critica aos seus adversários. E isso é incoerente e incompreensível.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-04-29 | Categories: artigo, conhecimento, economia, estado, opinião, política, relações internacionais, valores | Tags: comércio externo, comércio livre, Donald Trump, protecconismo, relações internacionais, tarifas, william mckinley | Leave a comment
Crise de valores
Entre o Passado e o Futuro (oito exercícios sobre o pensamento político: A Tradição e a Época Moderna / O Conceito de História – antigo e moderno / Que é autoridade? / Que é liberdade? / A Crise na Educação / A Crise na Cultura: sua importância social e política / Verdade e política / A Conquista do Espaço e a Estrutura Humana)
=====
Quem é que hoje ainda lê livros como este? Nos ensaios que o compõem, Hannah Arendt descreve o problema fundamental da civilização ocidental: uma profunda crise de valores.
Esta crise, que é de origem política, afecta todo o tecido social. Sobretudo os jovens.
Conceitos como justiça, razão, responsabilidade, virtude, glória, etc., perderam significado. A evolução do pensamento, a novidade e a inovação são desejáveis e indispensáveis desde que não se materializem em expressões de banalidade e de estupidez, nem na exacerbação da ganância. O esmorecer, ignorar ou romper com a tradição acarreta um preço enorme para o futuro.
Arendt tinha razão. A “crescente alienação do mundo” – disse –, “conduziu a uma situação em que o homem, onde quer que vá, apenas se encontra a si mesmo”. O iluminismo tem em si mesmo as raízes da sua destruição e poderá levar ao fim da democracia.
O eu, encarado apenas isoladamente, deve ser repensado. Não podemos desistir do indivíduo. É impensável fazê-lo por este ser a base de tudo, mas devemos encará-lo com um activo social. A cooperação, i.e., o trabalho em equipa, permite a progressão individual.
Defendo o capitalismo. Porém, a distribuição da riqueza deve ser reformulada. Não pode, nem deve, ser redistribuída segundo as métricas socialistas e marxistas. Mas tem de ser feita de modo a garantir as virtudes do capitalismo, do mercado livre e igualmente do elevador social.
Nada que Adam Smith ou Hayek já não tenham dito.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-04-27 | Categories: conhecimento, curiosidades, opinião, política, responsabilidade, valores | Tags: futuro, Hannah Arendt, homem, mentalidade, política, sociedade, valores | Leave a comment
André Ventura na Presidência
Há uns meses, André Ventura anunciou que seria candidato à Presidência da República. Infelizmente, voltou atrás para voltar a ser candidato a deputado. Ora, se o fizer agora terá o meu apoio e voto.
Eis porquê!
Ventura está sempre a dizer que é preciso unir os portugueses. Mas fá-lo ao mesmo tempo que apenas defende intransigentemente os que votaram no Chega. Eu penso que é efectivamente necessário unir os portugueses e que Ventura dificilmente conseguirá isso como Primeiro-ministro. Aliás, como é improvável que o Chega ganhe as legislativas com maioria absoluta, Ventura e o Chega perderão a aura da excepção e irão desgastar-se podendo vir a perder eleitorado.
Convém não esquecer que o Chega tem feito o que a esquerda fez há umas décadas e que a levou a ganhar mais eleições (principalmente ao PS): promessas e ilusões.
Não, não é exagero. E feitas as contas às promessas eleitorais do Chega nas últimas legislativas, os encargos das mesmas no Orçamento de Estado só rivalizaram com o Partido Comunista.
Assim, sendo Ventura eleito Presidente da República duas coisas muito positivas podem acontecer:
Primeiro, Ventura ocupará um cargo onde pode realmente unir os portugueses apartidariamente. Aliás, essa será uma obrigação decorrente do cargo.
Segundo, não tendo de implementar as políticas e medidas do Chega, não sofrerá o desgaste político que as mesmas inevitavelmente provocarão por não irem corresponder às expectativas das sucessivas promessas feitas nas campanhas eleitorais.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-04-13 | Categories: conhecimento, democracia, ironia, liberdade, opinião, política | Tags: andré ventura, apoio, Chega, política, presidência da república | Leave a comment
Trade Wars Are Easy to Lose
Beijing Has Escalation Dominance in the U.S.-China Tariff Fight
Adam S. Posen
April 9, 2025 – Foreign Affairs
“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with,” U.S. President Donald Trump famously tweeted in 2018, “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” This week, when the Trump administration imposed tariffs of more than 100 percent on U.S. imports from China, setting off a new and even more dangerous trade war, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered a similar justification: “I think it was a big mistake, this Chinese escalation, because they’re playing with a pair of twos. What do we lose by the Chinese raising tariffs on us? We export one-fifth to them of what they export to us, so that is a losing hand for them.”
In short, the Trump administration believes it has what game theorists call escalation dominance over China and any other economy with which it has a bilateral trade deficit. Escalation dominance, in the words of a report by the RAND Corporation, means that “a combatant has the ability to escalate a conflict in ways that will be disadvantageous or costly to the adversary while the adversary cannot do the same in return.” If the administration’s logic is correct, then China, Canada, and any other country that retaliates against U.S. tariffs is indeed playing a losing hand.
But this logic is wrong: it is China that has escalation dominance in this trade war. The United States gets vital goods from China that cannot be replaced any time soon or made at home at anything less than prohibitive cost. Reducing such dependence on China may be a reason for action, but fighting the current war before doing so is a recipe for almost certain defeat, at enormous cost. Or to put it in Bessent’s terms: Washington, not Beijing, is betting all in on a losing hand.
SHOW YOUR HAND
The administration’s claims are off base on two counts. For one thing, both sides get hurt in a trade war, because both lose access to things their economies want and need and that their people and companies are willing to pay for. Like launching an actual war, a trade war is an act of destruction that puts the attacker’s own forces and home front at risk, as well: if the defending side did not believe it could retaliate in a way that would harm the attacker, it would surrender.
Bessent’s poker analogy is misleading because poker is a zero-sum game: I win only if you lose; you win only if I lose. Trade, by contrast, is positive-sum: in most situations, the better you do, the better I do, and vice versa. In poker, you get nothing back for what you put in the pot unless you win; in trade, you get it back immediately, in the form of the goods and services you buy.
The Trump administration believes that the more you import, the less you have at stake—that because the United States has a trade deficit with China, importing more Chinese goods and services than China does U.S. goods and services, it is less vulnerable. This is factually wrong, not a matter of opinion. Blocking trade reduces a nation’s real income and purchasing power; countries export in order to earn the money to buy things they do not have or are too expensive to make at home.
What’s more, even if you focus solely on the bilateral trade balance, as the Trump administration does, it bodes poorly for the United States in a trade war with China. In 2024, U.S. exports of goods and services to China were $199.2 billion, and imports from China were $462.5 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $263.3 billion. To the degree that the bilateral trade balance predicts which side will “win” in a trade war, the advantage lies with the surplus economy, not the deficit one. China, the surplus country, is giving up sales, which is solely money; the United States, the deficit country, is giving up goods and services it does not produce competitively or at all at home. Money is fungible: if you lose income, you can cut back spending, find sales elsewhere, spread the burden across the country, or draw down savings (say, by doing fiscal stimulus). China, like most countries with overall trade surpluses, saves more than it invests—meaning that it, in a sense, has too much savings. The adjustment would be relatively easy. There would be no critical shortages, and it could replace much of what it normally sold to the United States with sales domestically or to others.
Countries with overall trade deficits, like the United States, spend more than they save. In trade wars, they give up or reduce the supply of things they need (since the tariffs make them cost more), and these are not nearly as fungible or easily substituted for as money. Consequently, the impact is felt in specific industries, locations, or households that face shortages, sometimes of necessary items, some of which are irreplaceable in the short term. Deficit countries also import capital—which makes the United States more vulnerable to shifts in sentiment about the reliability of its government and about its attractiveness as a place to do business. When the Trump administration makes capricious decisions to impose an enormous tax increase and great uncertainty on manufacturers’ supply chains, the result will be reduced investment into the United States, raising interest rates on its debt.
OF DEFICITS AND DOMINANCE
In short, the U.S. economy will suffer enormously in a large-scale trade war with China, which the current levels of Trump-imposed tariffs, at more than 100 percent, surely constitute if left in place. In fact, the U.S. economy will suffer more than the Chinese economy will, and the suffering will only increase if the United States escalates. The Trump administration may think it’s acting tough, but it’s in fact putting the U.S. economy at the mercy of Chinese escalation.
The United States will face shortages of critical inputs ranging from basic ingredients of most pharmaceuticals to inexpensive semiconductors used in cars and home appliances to critical minerals for industrial processes including weapons production. The supply shock from drastically reducing or zeroing out imports from China, as Trump purports to want to achieve, would mean stagflation, the macroeconomic nightmare seen in the 1970s and during the COVID pandemic, when the economy shrank and inflation rose simultaneously. In such a situation, which may be closer at hand than many think, the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers are left with only terrible options and little chance of staving off unemployment except by further raising inflation.
When it comes to real war, if you have reason to be afraid of being invaded, it would be suicidal to provoke your adversary before you’ve armed yourself. That is essentially what Trump’s economic attack risks: given that the U.S. economy is entirely dependent on Chinese sources for vital goods (pharmaceutical stocks, cheap electronic chips, critical minerals), it is wildly reckless not to ensure alternate suppliers or adequate domestic production before cutting off trade. By doing it the other way around, the administration is inviting exactly the kind of damage it says it wants to prevent.
This could all be intended as just a negotiating tactic, Trump’s and Bessent’s repeated statements and actions notwithstanding. But even on those terms, the strategy will do more harm than good. As I warned in Foreign Affairs last October, the fundamental problem with Trump’s economic approach is that it would need to carry out enough self-harming threats to be credible, which means that markets and households would expect ongoing uncertainty. Americans and foreigners alike would invest less rather than more in the U.S. economy, and they would no longer trust the U.S. government to live up to any deal, making a negotiated settlement or agreement to deescalate difficult to achieve. As a result, U.S. productive capacity would decline rather than improve, which would only increase the leverage that China and others have over the United States.
The Trump administration is embarking on an economic equivalent of the Vietnam War—a war of choice that will soon result in a quagmire, undermining faith at home and abroad in both the trustworthiness and the competence of the United States—and we all know how that turned out.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-04-11 | Categories: economics, knowledge, opinion, politics | Tags: china, economics, Foreign Affairs, Free trade, IR, USA | Leave a comment
How Trump Could Dethrone the Dollar
The World’s Reserve Currency May Not Survive the Weaponization of U.S. Economic Power
Edward Fishman, Gautam Jain, and Richard Nephew
April 8, 2025 – Foreign Affairs
The U.S. dollar has been the dominant currency in global trade and finance for more than seven decades. Over that time, little has ever truly threatened its position. Global economic systems operate with significant inertia. Major players, from governments to banks to multinational corporations, prefer tried and tested mechanisms for conducting trade and finance. Breathless headlines frequently declare that countries are seeking alternatives to the dollar, that a new consortium is attempting to create a rival currency, or that the latest political crisis in Washington will finally end the dollar’s reserve status. But through decades of changing economic growth around the world, periods of turmoil in global markets, and questions about the future of U.S. economic policy, the dollar’s dominance has remained secure.
Until now. On April 2, U.S. President Donald Trump announced steep new tariffs on almost every U.S. trading partner. His plans, which have sent U.S. and global stock markets plunging, are the latest example of a consistent theme in his approach to governance: the weaponization of U.S. economic power. Trump has slapped tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico in response to a variety of purported ills and reinvigorated the maximum pressure campaign against Iran begun in his first term. Combined with Trump’s attacks on the rule of law, his clumsy, erratic attempts to weaponize Washington’s economic advantages pose the greatest threat so far to the dollar’s status as a reserve currency.
Should that threat be realized, the United States and the world will be worse off. Without the dollar to ease trade and financial flows, growth will be slower and people everywhere will be poorer. And U.S. isolation will not bring the manufacturing revival the Trump administration claims to be aiming for, as imported raw materials grow more expensive and capital markets dry up. The true result of a declining dollar will be the demise of the very economic power Trump is attempting to wield.
COMMON CURRENCY
Although the dollar overtook the British pound sterling in the mid-1920s as the currency of choice in global foreign exchange reserves, its stature as the world’s reserve currency was secured only at the Bretton Woods conference toward the end of World War II. That conference resulted in new institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and a new system in which currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar, which was convertible to gold at a fixed price. Both the institutions and the dollar peg put currency stability at the center of the global economy. Since then, the dollar has retained its commanding position through multiple upheavals, surviving even the turmoil that followed U.S. President Richard Nixon’s 1971 decision to break the fixed dollar-to-gold exchange rate.
The dollar’s status depends on several features that any currency must possess if it hopes to make up the lion’s share of most countries’ foreign exchange reserves. At the most basic level, such a currency must be liquid—that is, easily bought and sold—and most people, banks, and businesses must agree to use it in their transactions. The dollar has long been dominant on both fronts. For more than three decades, between 85 and 90 percent of trades between currencies on foreign exchange markets have involved dollars. On the financial messaging system known as SWIFT, which international banks use to exchange tens of trillions of dollars each day, approximately 50 percent of transactions take place in dollars, up from around 35 percent a decade ago.
The world’s reserve currency doesn’t just need to be liquid and widely used; it also needs to function as the common unit of account for globally traded goods. Around the world, sales of commodities from oil to metals to crops are almost universally denominated in dollars. Some 54 percent of global trade invoices use dollar amounts, even though the United States accounts for only around ten percent of global trade.
The final requirement for a successful reserve currency is that people, businesses, and central banks consider it a reliable store of value. For that, the currency’s home country needs to have large and open financial markets with attractive investment opportunities predictably governed by the rule of law. Low and stable inflation helps, too, so the currency’s holders know the value of their assets will not evaporate overnight. The U.S. equity market is the largest in the world, with an overall value of $63 trillion at the end of 2024—amounting to nearly half the total value of the world’s equities, even after this year’s market rout. The U.S. economy is open to foreign investment: there are few restrictions on bringing capital into and out of the country. The Federal Reserve is widely viewed as independent and credible. And U.S. courts and regulators are trusted around the world to resolve business disputes, govern the economy predictably, and prevent significant corruption.
It also helps that the U.S. government bond market is the largest in the world, at around $28 trillion, over a quarter of the global market for government debt. U.S. government bonds (usually called Treasuries) are also the most liquid form of government debt, with around $900 billion in average daily transactions. That ease of buying and selling gives central banks comfort that Treasuries are a safe place to park cash. Taken together, these factors—liquidity, widespread use, and safety—make it hardly surprising that the dollar makes up the majority of international reserves and has done so for decades.
ONE OF A KIND
The dollar’s other great advantage as the world’s reserve currency is that it faces no credible challengers. The Chinese renminbi looms on the horizon, but China lacks open and liquid financial markets, one of the most important requirements for a reserve currency. The renminbi does not float freely on foreign currency exchanges. The Chinese government restrains the free flow of capital through measures such as controls on inbound and outbound investments and restrictions on international bank transfers. Foreigners face regulatory hurdles when investing in Chinese financial markets, including the local bond market, which also lacks the liquidity and depth of the world’s leading debt markets. China has attempted to promote its home-grown competitor to SWIFT, the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), especially since sanctions excluded some of Russia’s largest banks from SWIFT in 2022. But so far, CIPS has attracted just 0.2 percent of SWIFT’s transaction volume.
The dollar’s closest competitor is the euro, which meets many of the conditions for use as a global reserve currency. The eurozone has open and liquid capital markets, and the euro is the world’s second most widely traded currency and the second most commonly held reserve currency. Yet the eurozone does not include a fiscal union, and the bloc’s largest country, Germany, was, until earlier this year, reluctant to issue significant quantities of government debt. The lack of a unified eurozone fiscal policy led to the 2010–12 European debt crisis, which in turn caused a sharp drop in euro trading volumes on foreign exchange markets, euro-denominated SWIFT transactions, and the euro’s share in central bank reserves. The eurozone’s design flaws have been compounded by the fact that U.S. equities have returned nearly five times as much as their European peers over the past 15 years, leading asset allocators to concentrate investments in the United States. To make matters worse for the euro, the geopolitical threat to Europe posed by Russian imperialism has given central bankers yet another reason to steer clear of the currency.
Efforts to promote other upstart reserve currencies have so far gone nowhere. The BRICS group, a club of major non-Western economies, has floated a potential new currency that would compete with the dollar. In the near term, at least, this new currency, which will purportedly be backed by a basket of currencies from the participating countries, will pose no threat to dollar dominance. Not only is there no plan to create a common monetary or fiscal union within the BRICS, but the countries involved also differ widely in their domestic and international priorities. A currency created by a group far more fragmented than even the eurozone has no serious prospect of becoming the default choice for global business, especially since the BRICS has not yet explained how it might work.
Nor have shinier alternatives, such as bitcoin and gold, found much success. Cryptocurrencies lack many of the necessary characteristics to function as reserve currencies, including liquidity, price stability, and backing from either a government or another clear source of value. Gold has been used as currency for millennia and formed the basis for many monetary systems until relatively recently, but its weaknesses are now apparent. For one thing, governments cannot control the supply, so relying on gold constrains their ability to respond to economic crises.
THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT
Commanding as the dollar may be, Trump’s return to office has created a genuine threat to its status for the first time in generations. Given the lack of ready alternatives, the damage is unlikely to be immediately fatal, but the risk, and probable pace, of terminal decline has increased. At the least, Trump’s actions will erode the factors supporting the dollar’s dominance.
In his first weeks in office, Trump pursued policies that led to a strong dollar, but since then, the greenback has slumped against other currencies. At first, the dollar rallied as U.S. interest rates rose on the back of Trump’s inflationary policies, including tariffs, deportations, and proposed tax cuts. Those same policies, however, and the economic uncertainty they have created, are now weighing on the dollar, as markets expect them to hurt U.S. growth substantially, especially following the announcement of Trump’s aggressive and far-reaching global tariffs. Supply-chain disruptions driven by the trade war, labor shortages caused by deportations, and overall policy uncertainty are hurting business and consumer sentiment, leading to lower spending, lower growth, and lower interest rates. Largely as a result of Trump’s policies, European stocks outperformed the leading U.S. stock index by almost 20 percent over the first quarter of 2025, the biggest margin in more than three decades.
Look beyond the immediate horizon, and the risks of Trump’s policies are even greater. To begin with, Trump’s dramatic global tariffs, in addition to destabilizing the U.S. economy, will irrevocably damage the credibility of the United States as a trading partner. This will, in turn, undermine the need for and use of the dollar. U.S. allies will suffer the gravest harm, since many of them will face higher tariff rates than U.S. adversaries. Israel, Japan, and the EU, for example, are all subject to higher rates than Iran or Russia. Economists have shown that countries are more likely to hold reserves of currencies from their geopolitical partners. By alienating the United States’ closest allies, Trump is pushing away the countries that have been the most willing to rely on dollar-facilitated trade. Trump’s decision to turn against Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and his open questioning of NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense commitment are amplifying concerns about the United States’ willingness to keep its promises. As countries search for ways to limit their exposure to Trump’s whims, they are unlikely to rapidly reduce their dollar dependence, but in time, growing trade relations with China and other major economies could give businesses an incentive to replace the dollar in some transactions.
Sanctions will provide another reason to look elsewhere. The administration’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran and the forceful measures it has deployed against Venezuela indicate that the already widespread use of sanctions could ramp up even further in Trump’s second term. As more countries come under U.S. sanctions, they will be motivated to do what Russia did after 2018 and reduce their reliance on the dollar for cross-border trade and currency reserves. Even if these countries don’t shift away from the dollar entirely or replace it with a single dominant alternative, other payment systems like CIPS could start looking more attractive. China is the biggest trading partner for roughly two-thirds of the world’s countries; if CIPS becomes the only way to do business with Chinese companies, financial institutions in those places will have a powerful incentive to sign up. Rather than reshaping their trade patterns to fit U.S. preferences, countries will reshape their financial infrastructure to keep trade flowing.
Trump’s actions will erode the factors supporting the dollar’s dominance.
Perhaps the biggest danger to the dollar’s dominance comes from Trump’s threats to the rule of law, which will shake the foundation on which the dollar’s standing rests. The risk is not only that the administration may precipitate a constitutional crisis by defying the courts but also that a more corrupt and personalist form of government may become entrenched under a president inclined to cut deals with his friends and punish his enemies. A serious impediment to adoption of the Chinese renminbi is the rule of law, or rather the lack of it: companies would rather end up in an American courtroom than a Chinese one any day of the week. Should this U.S. advantage erode, the results could be catastrophic.
U.S. government debt, which the Congressional Budget Office has projected will rise from 100 percent of GDP to almost 150 percent by 2050, provides an additional risk. If Congress cuts taxes further without curbing spending (regardless of the budgetary tricks used in the process), the resulting debt will mean that a greater share of government revenue will go to interest payments rather than other spending priorities, hurting long-term economic growth and the appeal of U.S. assets. Some in the administration’s orbit have floated ideas, often under the title of a proposed Mar-a-Lago accord, that would make this problem significantly worse. These include compelling foreign investors to swap their U.S. government bond holdings for zero interest hundred-year bonds, which would hurt the credibility of the United States as a borrower and, by extension, the dollar’s standing. Forcing countries to take a loss on their U.S. bond holdings will scare away future buyers and, if the swap is involuntary, may even be classified as a default by credit rating agencies.
Finally, if the economy weakens, as many Wall Street banks are now projecting, Trump could find himself on a collision course with the Fed, as happened in his first term. The Fed has indicated that it will need more clarity on the inflationary effect of Trump’s tariffs before cutting interest rates further, while Trump is already demanding a looser monetary policy to stimulate a slowing economy—pressure that is likely only to increase. Should Trump’s pressure succeed, he will damage the Fed’s independence and credibility, which will, in turn, hurt the dollar’s global standing as countries begin to fear that politics, not economics, is steering U.S. monetary policy. The Fed anchors the entire dollar-based system, and once it has been politicized for one reason, it will be easier to politicize its operations for another. Central banks in such places as Canada, Japan, and Europe would, for example, rightly worry that, in a crisis, a politicized Fed might even cut off their prized ability to borrow dollars through swap lines in an effort to extract concessions.
Even if these threats do not dethrone the dollar entirely, any reduction in its standing would have serious consequences for the United States and the world. The dollar’s reserve status provides immense benefits to the United States, including lower interest rates on government debt and the power to impose hard-hitting sanctions. Other countries also find operating in the global economy easier with a readily transferrable, highly liquid, trusted currency used by most actors. The result of the dollar’s decline will be higher costs, more complicated trade, and reduced living standards—at least until another currency comes along to replace it.
The dollar has not always been the world’s reserve currency or the currency of choice for international trade. In the nineteenth century, it was the pound sterling that enjoyed that status, and British financiers would have felt secure in its reign. The United Kingdom had deep, liquid capital markets, and the British Empire was the world’s largest economy and the central player in global trade. Yet after two world wars and decades of political and economic decline, London watched as sterling’s global status ebbed away. There was nothing inevitable about the pound’s slide or the dollar’s emergence, just as there is nothing inevitable about the dollar’s potential demise today. Choices, not destiny, determine reserve currencies; if the dollar is finally dethroned, it will be a disaster of the Trump administration’s own making.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-04-11 | Categories: economics, knowledge, opinion, politics, relações internacionais, valores | Tags: dollar, Donald Trump, economics, IR, politics, values | Leave a comment
A UE não é uma Federação
Não é obrigatório saber de tudo e mais alguma coisa para dar uma opinião sobre os mais variados assuntos. Contudo, o bom senso devia aconselhar a que essa opinião fosse feita com humildade, especialmente quando se refere a assuntos que não dominamos. É, na falta de outra palavra, cansativo ver “especialistas” referir a assuntos sobre os quais não têm o mínimo conhecimento.
Um dos temas mais comuns é a política de defesa da “Europa”, em que esses “especialistas”, ao relacionarem-na com as guerras de Ucrânia com a Rússia, de Israel e do Hamas, Trump, etc., misturam e confundem conceitos. Tudo por considerarem que as acções da UE em matéria de política externa e segurança comum são frívolas e ambíguas.
Para perceber como funciona a UE é fundamental ter noções de teorias e modelos de integração – a UE não é um Estado federal – e, SOBRETUDO, ler os Tratados Europeus. Já referi este assunto em vários posts. Fá-lo-ei aqui mais uma vez.
➡️ Sendo uma organização supranacional (com uma vertente intergovernamental), as competências da UE decorrem das atribuições expressas no Tratado de Lisboa (Tratado de Funcionamento da União Europeia) que as define e classifica em três categorias:
Exclusivas (artigo 3.º);
Partilhadas (artigo 4.º);
e de Apoio (artigo 6.º).
Tendo em mente a natureza da UE, não é difícil perceber a ideia subjacente a esta divisão.
➡️ Esses mesmos Tratados plasmam que a Política Externa e de Segurança Comum não é uma política integrada. Como tal, a sua execução exige um método de cooperação no Conselho Europeu. Isto significa que todas as decisões nesta matéria só podem ser tomadas por unanimidade, i.e., com o voto favorável dos 27 Estados-membros.
➡️ Porém, mesmo que todos os Estados-membros concordem, não é possível adoptar actos legislativos por a UE estar proibida de o fazer nestas matérias. Logo, é impossível tomar decisões vinculativas de carácter geral.
A probabilidade de haver quem discorde do que digo aqui é alta. Para os “descrentes”, aconselho a leitura do n.º 1 do art.º 31º, que dispõe o seguinte:
“As decisões ao abrigo do presente capítulo são tomadas pelo Conselho Europeu e pelo Conselho, deliberando por unanimidade, salvo disposição em contrário do presente capítulo. Fica excluída a adopção de actos legislativos. Qualquer membro do Conselho que se abstenha numa votação pode fazer acompanhar a sua abstenção de uma declaração formal nos termos do presente parágrafo. Nesse caso, não é obrigado a aplicar a decisão, mas deve reconhecer que ela vincula a União. Num espírito de solidariedade mútua, esse Estado-Membro deve abster-se de qualquer actuação susceptível de colidir com a acção da União baseada na referida decisão ou de a dificultar; os demais Estados-Membros respeitarão a posição daquele. Se os membros do Conselho que façam acompanhar a sua abstenção da citada declaração representarem, no mínimo, um terço dos Estados-Membros que reúna, no mínimo, um terço da população da União, a decisão não é adoptada.”
Post-scriptum:
Fiz estes esquemas para os meus alunos da Universidade do Minho. Oxalá ajudem a compreender melhor a UE
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-03-30 | Categories: conhecimento, direito internacional, gestão pública, política, relações internacionais, unidade | Tags: defesa, democracia, integração, modelo, relações internacionais, segurança | Leave a comment
Really?
Besides her poor knowledge of history, there are several things to be said about Karoline Leavitt’s absurd response to the ridiculous request for the return of the Statue of Liberty.
First, the gratitude of Europeans toward the support, effort, and dedication of Americans in liberating Europe from the Nazi yoke will never diminish.
Second, the gift of the Statue of Liberty was never related to the two world wars, but rather to the fact that the US were a symbol of freedom.
Third, Donald Trump has abandoned Ukraine’s fight for freedom and democracy.
Fourth, Trump only praises dictators and preferred to ally himself with one of them, Putin, with the excuse of ending the war as quickly as possible.
👉 As such:
➡️ It’s a good thing that Donald Trump wasn’t the US President during World War II.
➡️ Because if he were, the chances of him making a deal with Hitler to stop the war were extremely high.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-03-25 | Categories: curiosidades, ironia, knowledge, liberdade, opinion | Tags: Donald Trump, Leavitt, Statue of Liberty, stupidity, War | Leave a comment
Compromissos? Aliados? Que se lixem!
Donald Trump mudou o mundo. Disso não há qualquer dúvida. O problema é ter mudado o mundo para pior: mais desconfiado, mais inseguro e mais armado.
Donald Trump mudou o mundo. Disso não há qualquer dúvida. O problema é ter mudado o mundo para pior. O mundo ocidental, e não só, entrou num período em que as relações entre Estados são reguladas pela desconfiança, insegurança, para além das capacidades militares. Trump originou uma corrida ao rearmamento. E esta foi a pior consequência por ser expectável que a corrida não se cingisse ao armamento convencional.
Há uma semana escrevi (Linkedln, Facebook e Substack) que o tempo tinha dado razão a Charles de Gaulle e à sua insistência na necessidade de a França ter as suas próprias armas atómicas porque os EUA acabariam por ter relutância em utilizar as suas armas nucleares para defender os países europeus contra a União Soviética ou agora contra a Rússia de Putin. Acrescentei que era muito provável que a Polónia considerasse a possibilidade de adquirir armas nucleares e que a Alemanha seria confrontada com a eventualidade de fazer o mesmo. Ontem, (7 de março), Donald Tusk, confirmou que a Polónia quer ter armamento nuclear. A Rússia já se manifestou contra estas possibilidades.
Não é que Trump não tenha razão quanto aos orçamentos de defesa dos membros Europeus da NATO (já várias vezes defendi o reforço do investimento na defesa e segurança). O problema é que Trump não percebeu que a protecção americana também evitava a proliferação nuclear. Assim, quem arrisca uma terceira guerra mundial é Trump.
Infelizmente, as declarações de Trump e de Vance sobre a NATO e sobre os aliados europeus, tiveram o efeito de descredibilizar definitivamente a Aliança. Ao minarem a confiança afectaram irremediavelmente a relação transatlântica. Doravante serão os interesses de conveniência que regularão as relações entre a Europa e os EUA. Se, eventualmente, uma próxima administração norte-americana tiver posições mais próximas dos europeus, estes vão presumir que essa aproximação é conjuntural, dependente de próximo ocupante da Casa Branca.
Não é difícil chegar a esta conclusão. Quando a confiança é afectada, dificilmente é restaurada. Como tal, a relação transatlântica em vez de ser regulada pela confiança passará a sê-lo pela desconfiança.
Para além disso, reparem no seguinte. Sob a iniciativa e liderança dos EUA, os membros da NATO formaram uma comunidade de valores comprometida com os princípios da liberdade individual, da democracia, dos direitos humanos e do Estado de direito. Trump e Vance questionam a NATO e Elon Musk é um dos que defende que os EUA devem abandonar a Aliança. Porquê?
Todavia, a aproximação e o alinhamento com a Rússia, evidenciado pela repetição da propaganda do Kremlin que o próprio Donald Trump faz, teve mais efeitos para além do afastamento dos tradicionais aliados dos EUA e na reversão de décadas de política externa norte-americana. Também aumentou a dúvida e a desconfiança de que Trump age sob as ordens de Putin. E essa percepção já não se cinge aos europeus. Como resultado, não são apenas os países ocidentais que receiam partilhar informações com os EUA. Também outros países aliados, incluindo Israel e a Arábia Saudita, consideram limitar a partilha com medo de que a mesma vá parar a Moscovo. Trump conseguiu isolar os EUA.
Um dos meus melhores amigos é o José António Rodrigues do Carmo. Ambos pensamos pela nossa cabeça sem preocupações de agradar a ninguém. Nem sempre estamos de acordo, mas partilhamos os mesmos valores. Também partilhamos a estupefação de, primeiro, ver pessoas que diziam que Ronald Reagan tinha sido o melhor presidente dos EUA, apoiar cega e acriticamente Donald Trump que representa a antítese e a negação de tudo o que Reagan defendeu. Segundo, tal como o Rodrigues do Carmo também já expressei em vários escritos o meu pasmo pela incapacidade relativamente à compreensão das coisas simples:
- Se a Rússia parar de lutar, acaba a guerra.
- Se a Ucrânia parar de lutar, acaba a Ucrânia.
Não é possível confiar em Donald Trump. Esta é a realidade com que temos de viver. Quanto mais cedo o aceitarmos, melhor!
Agora que começam a perceber que não perdem nada em investir em defesa e segurança, no que respeita à compra de armamento, os Europeus só devem recorrer ao EUA em último caso. Caso contrário, tal como aconteceu à Ucrânia, arriscam a ficar indefesos.
Vários países europeus, como por exemplo, Alemanha, França, Itália, Reino Unido, Suécia, produzem armamento e tecnologia de ponta (aviões, tanques, mísseis, cibersegurança, etc.). A tecnologia que a Ucrânia está a desenvolver com os drones também é de aproveitar. E no caso de aviões de combate de 6ª geração, o Japão, que está a desenvolver um avião em parceria com a Itália e o Reino Unido é uma opção.
Se vamos gastar dinheiro na compras de armas, devemos investir na produção e no desenvolvimento da indústria europeia.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-03-15 | Categories: artigo, defesa, democracia, direito internacional, liberdade, política, relações internacionais, segurança, valores | Tags: defesa, Donald Trump, NATO, Putin, Rússia, relações internacionais, Ucrânia, união europeia, valores | Leave a comment
O Fim de uma Era
Uma outra América está a surgir. MAGA representa uma nova visão que requer a extinção do partido republicano e do mundo que os americanos construíram depois de 1945.
1. A administração Trump não deixa de ser uma representação do que se passa em quase todos os países da democracia ocidental: extremismo, radicalismo, intolerância e intransigência amparadas por apoiantes que se comportam como claques, ou seitas, obedientes e cegas, que aplaudem os seus quando estes defendem as mesmas ideias que criticaram aos adversários políticos.
Este apogeu da ausência de pensamento crítico começou com a queda da União Soviética. Incapazes de simultaneamente aceitar a inconformidade do marxismo à realidade e de compreender o porquê, os intelectuais da esquerda começaram a utilizar a cultura como meio privilegiado para manter a ilusão do comunismo viva. Ora, não é surpreendente que a esquerda prefira a imposição de comportamentos por lei à defesa dos direitos. Afinal, a extinção da liberdade faz parte da essência do marxismo. Porém, é muito estranho que a direita, em vez de defender os direitos e as opções individuais, tenha também seguido o caminho da proibição e da imposição. Esta reacção recorda os tempos vividos antes da Segunda Guerra Mundial (WW2).
Não apoio o politicamente correcto por significar fraqueza e incapacidade de defesa de valores. Não apoio qualquer extremismo político, religioso, social e económico por implicar imposição sobre terceiros. Não apoio a cultura do cancelamento, nem o wokismo, por serem expressões de intolerância. Não apoio a identidade do género, que considero ser uma aberração, por resultar da insegurança de pessoas com pouca auto-estima e, embora reconheça os direitos das minorias, nos moldes ensinados por Lord Acton, não posso aceitar que sejam uma imposição sobre a maioria.
Precisamente por ter criticado as posturas autocráticas da esquerda, não posso apoiar as da direita. Achar que as decisões de Trump sobre a identidade de género são suficientes para aceitar as limitações à democracia que ele defende é uma loucura.
2. O GOP (Grand Old Party), mais conhecido por Partido Republicano, acabou. Donald Trump e associados trataram disso. O que existe agora é o MAGA, algo completamente distinto, até mesmo contraditório aos princípios e valores que foram defendidos pelo partido republicano.
Para explicar o meu ponto de vista, recordo palavras de Ronald Reagan que, em 1988, disse que tarifas contra o Canadá e o México eram antiamericanas.
“Os nossos parceiros comerciais pacíficos não são nossos inimigos. São nossos aliados. Devemos ter cuidado com os demagogos que estão prontos a declarar uma guerra comercial contra os nossos amigos — enfraquecendo a nossa economia, a nossa segurança nacional e todo o mundo livre — enquanto agitam cinicamente a bandeira americana. A expansão da economia internacional não é uma invasão estrangeira, é um triunfo americano. Um objectivo para o qual trabalhámos arduamente para alcançar e algo central para a nossa visão de um mundo pacífico e próspero de liberdade. Após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os Estados Unidos lideraram o caminho para desmantelar as barreiras comerciais e criar um sistema de comércio mundial que preparou o terreno para décadas de crescimento económico inigualável. Sim, em 1776 os nossos pais fundadores acreditavam que valia a pena lutar pelo comércio livre. E podemos celebrar a sua vitória porque hoje o comércio está no centro da aliança que assegura a paz e garante a nossa liberdade. É a fonte da nossa prosperidade e o caminho para um futuro ainda mais risonho para a América”.
3. Antes de abordar o significado das palavras de Ronald Reagan, é necessário estabelecer paralelismos entre o que se verificou antes da WW2 e o que e agora assistimos. Para tal é necessário relembrar dois casos de dois países não tiveram nada a dizer sobre o seu futuro: Checoslováquia e Polónia.
Primeiro, os acordos de Munique de setembro de 1938. Edvard Beneš, Presidente da Checoslováquia, depois da pressão dos governos de Neville Chamberlain e de Édouard Daladier, acabou por concordar com a cedência dos Sudetas a Adolf Hitler. Este ultraje à soberania territorial da Checoslováquia aconteceu em nome da paz.
Segundo, o Pacto Molotov-Ribbentrop de agosto de 1939, um pacto de não agressão mútua entre a Alemanha e a União Soviética que dividiram entre si a Polónia. Claro que nenhuma parte tinha intenção em cumprir o acordado. Não obstante, o pacto, que continha um protocolo secreto definido as fronteiras das esferas de influência soviética e alemã na Polónia, Lituânia, Letónia, Estónia e Finlândia, permitiu a Estaline recuperar o império perdido de Lenin, foi feito em nome da paz.
Tendo aprendido com as lições da humilhação que o Armistício de Compiégne impôs aos vencidos, depois da vitória na WW2, os vencedores agiram de outra maneira e ajudaram e apoiaram a reconstrução da Alemanha e do Japão. Para além disso, sob a liderança dos EUA, os Aliados estabeleceram um quadro de direito internacional que promoveu o respeito pela soberania territorial dos Estados e criaram um ambiente propício ao desenvolvimento do comércio internacional. Todo o planeta, incluindo e especialmente os EUA, prosperou.
O mundo que os EUA criaram incluía as Nações Unidas, cuja carta codifica os princípios das relações internacionais, desde a igualdade soberana dos Estados até à proibição do uso da força nas relações internacionais. Um dos objectivos expressos no seu preâmbulo é “estabelecer as condições sob as quais a justiça e o respeito às obrigações decorrentes dos tratados e outras fontes do direito internacional possam ser mantidos”, vinculando todos os membros da ONU.
Como o mundo é formado por países, no âmbito das relações internacionais, a teoria prevalecente é o realismo por se referir ao poder do(s) Estado(s), à força e até à balança de poder, num contexto de anarquia e de disputa internacional. Os EUA ajudaram a ultrapassar o tempo e as ideias de Tucídides, Maquiavel, Hobbes, Sun Tzu e Richelieu.
Hans Morgenthau, no seu livro de 1948 – Política entre as Nações: A Luta pelo Poder e pela Paz – enumerou os seis princípios do Realismo. Embora tenha enfatizado a importância da dimensão ética da política externa, pouca atenção lhe foi dada pelos decisores políticos. Hoje, infelizmente, dois dos princípios de Morgenthau (1) o realismo é uma perspectiva consciente do significado moral da acção política e (2) as aspirações morais de uma única comunidade ou Estado podem não ser universalmente válidas ou partilháveis – estão praticamente esquecidos.
De um certo modo, o pragmatismo de Edward Carr aliado ao realismo de Hans Morgenthau, foram, até ao início do seculo XXI, o entendimento prevalecente. Mas isso mudou. Convém não esquecer que na Realpolitik a ética e os princípios morais são relativos. Se os Estados procuram permanentemente sobreviver, então para manter essa sobrevivência podem deixar de honrar compromissos e acordos, assim como desrespeitar regras morais.
As palavras de Ronald Reagan sintetizam o mundo que os EUA criaram. Mais do que qualquer entidade internacional, o comércio internacional foi o factor mais importante para a paz. A era da pax americana simbolizada por Reagan acabou.
4. Donald Trump não gosta desses contornos e só pensa no passado. As suas referências às presidências de William McKinley (1897-1901) e de Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) demonstram-no. A expansão que estes promoveram só foi possível porque o colonialismo ainda não tinha terminado. Quantos Estados existiam e eram reconhecidos em 1909?
Para além disso, a administração Trump manifestou a sua relutância em honrar as obrigações assumidas pelos governos anteriores. Se não defenderá nenhum membro da NATO, incluindo no caso de invocação do artigo 5.º, então também não honrará os compromissos com a Ucrânia.
Se o que foi divulgado pelo Telegraph corresponde à proposta de acordo que Trump apresentou a Zelensky, este nem sequer pode escolher o menor dos dois males. A Ucrânia vai ser ocupada pelos russos e simultaneamente explorada pelos EUA. E terá de assinar um acordo típico dos tempos do colonialismo.
Pelos vistos, Donald Trump e Elon Musk não leram a Riqueza das Nações (Adam Smith) nem O Caminho para a Servidão (Friedrich Hayek). Não é possível gerir o Estado como uma empresa privada. É obvio que os governos devem ter preocupação em gerir criteriosamente os dinheiros públicos. Porém, devido à natureza publica do Estado, existirá sempre a necessidade de algumas despesas para o bem comum.
O corte indiscriminado e cego de despesas sem noção das consequências levou casos de estupidez monumental. Talvez o melhor exemplo seja o despedimento e a imediata reintegração dos funcionários da segurança nuclear. Foi insano e perigoso. No entanto, continuam a cortar nas despesas sem se aperceberem da gravidade. Mas nada disto é novo. Recordam-se do péssimo acordo que Trump negociou com os Talibans durante o seu primeiro mandato? A sua única preocupação é diminuir a despesa sem olhar a meios ou a consequências. Este é um dos principais pressupostos da sua governação. Adicionalmente, as suas ações também indicam que Trump quer ficar mais rico no processo. Quem beneficiou com as cripto-moedas de Trump e Melania? Não me parece que tenham sido os cidadãos americanos.
5. Dito isto, vou equacionar um cenário hipotético e presumir que o principal objectivo da administração Trump é atingir a China através do rompimento da aliança da Rússia à China. Donald Trump parece estar convencido dar uma parte da Ucrânia a Putin será suficiente.
Ora, não foram apenas preocupações de segurança que levaram Putin a invadir a Ucrânia. E o que ele pretendia era dominar todo o país para garantir acesso a todas as suas riquezas naturais. Trump está a oferecer a Putin um acordo que só dá à Rússia posse parcial da Ucrânia ao mesmo tempo que garante para os EUA a exploração das riquezas da Ucrânia. Assim, que motivo tem Putin para quebrar a ligação a Pequim? Putin pode perfeitamente jogar com os dois lados para ganhar com ambos.
Se este é o objectivo da administração Trump, é ingénuo e poderá ter um efeito de dominó e de escalada.
Putin dificilmente cederá às pretensões de Trump sem obter algo que considere ser suficiente para compensar o que pode perder com a China. Isso pode significar mais conquistas territoriais. Ora, tal só acontecerá se Trump fechar os olhos a uma invasão russa a países da União Europeia e da NATO.
Nesse caso, os Estados Bálticos poderão ser os primeiros a entrar em guerra com Putin. E a reacção dos americanos poderá ser a ocupação da Groenlândia e dos Açores, com a justificação de protecção. Se isso acontecer, a pressão de Trump sobre o Canadá também aumentará.
Espero, sinceramente, que este hipotético cenário não aconteça. Mas, como não é possível confiar na palavra de Donald Trump, os europeus devem preparar-se para todas as eventualidades.
Por fim, relativamente ao aumento dos orçamentos de defesa dos parceiros europeus da NATO, há anos que defendo isso. A sugestão que faço é a seguinte. Como há vários países europeus com tecnologia de ponta em várias áreas da defesa, comprem primeiro aos europeus e só recorram aos EUA em último caso.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-02-22 | Categories: artigo, conhecimento, democracia, direito internacional, ironia, responsabilidade, segurança | Tags: Donald Trump, NATO, política externa, relações internacionais, Ucrânia, união europeia | Leave a comment
Trump Triggers a Crisis in Denmark—And Europe
What a single phone call from the president-elect did to an unswerving American ally
By Anne Applebaum
What did Donald Trump say over the phone to Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, on Wednesday? I don’t know which precise words he used, but I witnessed their impact. I arrived in Copenhagen the day after the call—the subject, of course, was the future of Greenland, which Denmark owns and which Trump wants—and discovered that appointments I had with Danish politicians were suddenly in danger of being canceled. Amid Frederiksen’s emergency meeting with business leaders, her foreign minister’s emergency meeting with party leaders, and an additional emergency meeting of the foreign-affairs committee in Parliament, everything, all of a sudden, was in complete flux.
The result: Mid-morning, I found myself standing on the Knippel Bridge between the Danish foreign ministry and the Danish Parliament, holding a phone, waiting to be told which direction to walk. Denmark in January is not warm; I went to the Parliament and waited there. The meeting was canceled anyway. After that, nobody wanted to say anything on the record at all. Thus have Americans who voted for Trump because of the putatively high price of eggs now precipitated a political crisis in Scandinavia.
Read: The intellectual rationalization for annexing Greenland
In private discussions, the adjective that was most frequently used to describe the Trump phone call was rough. The verb most frequently used was threaten. The reaction most frequently expressed was confusion. Trump made it clear to Frederiksen that he is serious about Greenland: He sees it, apparently, as a real-estate deal. But Greenland is not a beachfront property. The world’s largest island is an autonomous territory of Denmark, inhabited by people who are Danish citizens, vote in Danish elections, and have representatives in the Danish Parliament. Denmark also has politics, and a Danish prime minister cannot sell Greenland any more than an American president can sell Florida.
At the same time, Denmark is also a country whose global companies—among them Lego, the shipping giant Maersk, and Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic—do billions of dollars worth of trade with the United States, and have major American investments too. They thought these were positive aspects of the Danish-American relationship. Denmark and the United States are also founding members of NATO, and Danish leaders would be forgiven for believing that this matters in Washington too. Instead, these links turn out to be a vulnerability. On Thursday afternoon Frederiksen emerged and, flanked by her foreign minister and her defense minister, made a statement. “It has been suggested from the American side,” she said, “that unfortunately a situation may arise where we work less together than we do today in the economic area.”
Still, the most difficult aspect of the crisis is not the need to prepare for an unspecified economic threat from a close ally, but the need to cope with a sudden sense of almost Kafkaesque absurdity. In truth, Trump’s demands are illogical. Anything that the U.S. theoretically might want to do in Greenland is already possible, right now. Denmark has never stopped the U.S. military from building bases, searching for minerals, or stationing troops in Greenland, or from patrolling sea lanes nearby. In the past, the Danes have even let Americans defy Danish policy in Greenland. Over lunch, one former Danish diplomat told me a Cold War story, which unfolded not long after Denmark had formally declared itself to be a nuclear-free country. In 1957, the U.S. ambassador nevertheless approached Denmark’s then–prime minister, H. C. Hansen, with a request. The United States was interested in storing some nuclear weapons at an American base in Greenland. Would Denmark like to be notified?
Read: Trump is thinking of buying a giant socialist island
Hansen responded with a cryptic note, which he characterized, according to diplomatic records, as “informal, personal, highly secret and limited to one copy each on the Danish and American side.” In the note, which was not shared with the Danish Parliament or the Danish press, and indeed was not made public at all until the 1990s, Hansen said that since the U.S. ambassador had not mentioned specific plans or made a concrete request, “I do not think your remarks give rise to any comment from my side.” In other words, If you don’t tell us that you are keeping nuclear weapons in Greenland, then we won’t have to object.
The Danes were loyal U.S. allies then, and remain so now. During the Cold War, they were central to NATO’s planning. After the Soviet Union dissolved, they reformed their military, creating expeditionary forces specifically meant to be useful to their American allies. After 9/11, when the mutual-defense provision of the NATO treaty was activated for the first time—on behalf of the U.S.—Denmark sent troops to Afghanistan, where 43 Danish soldiers died. As a proportion of their population, then about 5 million, this is a higher mortality rate than the U.S. suffered. The Danes also sent troops to Iraq, and joined NATO teams in the Balkans. They thought they were part of the web of relationships that have made American power and influence over the past half century so unique. Because U.S. alliances were based on shared values, not merely transactional interests, the level of cooperation was different. Denmark helped the U.S., when asked, or volunteered without being asked. “So what did we do wrong?” one Danish official asked me.
Obviously, they did nothing wrong—but that’s part of the crisis too. Trump himself cannot articulate, either at press conferences or, apparently, over the telephone, why exactly he needs to own Greenland, or how Denmark can give American companies and soldiers more access to Greenland than they already have. Plenty of others will try to rationalize his statements anyway. The Economist has declared the existence of a “Trump doctrine,” and a million articles have solemnly debated Greenland’s strategic importance. But in Copenhagen (and not only in Copenhagen), people suspect a far more irrational explanation: Trump just wants the U.S. to look larger on a map.
This instinct—to ignore existing borders, laws, and treaties; to treat other countries as artificial; to break up trade links and destroy friendships, all because the Leader wants to look powerful—is one that Trump shares with imperialists of the past. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has also crowed over the alleged similarity between the U.S. desire for Greenland and the Russian desire for territory in Ukraine. Lavrov suggested a referendum might be held in Greenland, comparing that possibility to the fake referenda, held under duress, that Russia staged in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Of course, Trump might forget about Greenland. But also, he might not. Nobody knows. He operates on whims, sometimes picking up ideas from the last person he met, sometimes returning to obsessions he had apparently abandoned: windmills, sharks, Hannibal Lecter, and now Greenland. To Danes and pretty much anyone else who makes plans, signs treaties, or creates long-term strategies using rational arguments, this way of making policy feels arbitrary, pointless, even surreal. But it is also now permanent, and there is no going back.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-02-11 | Categories: conhecimento, direito internacional, gestão pública, opinion, politics, relações internacionais, valores | Tags: Applebaum, borders, Donald Trump, imperialism, International relations, sovereignty, USA | Leave a comment
Realidades vs percepções
Posted by VFS | 2025-02-04 | Categories: conhecimento, economia, gestão pública, nacionalismo, opinião, responsabilidade | Tags: comércio externo, Donald Trump, economia, gestão pública, globalização, política | Leave a comment
MAGA rules

“Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies. They are our allies. We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the american flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion, it is an American triumph. One we worked hard to achieve and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom. After the Second World War America led the way to dismantle trade barriers and create a world trading system that set the stage for decades of unparalleled economic growth. Yes, back in 1776 our founding fathers believed that free trade was worth fighting for. And we can celebrate their victory because today trade it’s at the core of the alliance that secures peace and guarantees our freedom. It is the source of our prosperity and the path to an even brighter future for America.”
– Ronald Reagan
GOP is gone. Completely gone. Thanks to Trump and associates.
MAGA is in charge now.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-02-03 | Categories: opinion, politics, relações internacionais, valores | Tags: Corporatocracy, Donald Trump, GOP, International relations, MAGA, Ronald Reagan, USA | Leave a comment
Mais crescimento económico é a única solução
Portugal é um país rico em socialismo. É por isso que a pobreza é abundante. A solução é simples. Mais crescimento económico (opção que terá efeitos endógenos e exógenos).
Há tempos ouvi Ricardo Paes Mamede afirmar que os liberais não deveriam referir a Irlanda para exemplificar o sucesso da aplicação da simplificação fiscal (com taxa plana ou diminuição de escalões). Para o efeito, argumentou que a Irlanda beneficiava de condições, económicas e financeiras, privilegiadas devido às inúmeras empresas norte-americanas que estão lá sediadas, o que é verdade.
Contudo, o argumento apresentado por Paes Mamede deve ser questionado. Para além de razões culturais óbvias, as empresas norte-americanas podiam ter optado por se instalar em Inglaterra. Mas não o fizeram. Porquê? É evidente que as opções políticas, fiscais e económicas, tomadas pelo Governo irlandês foram e são um factor determinante para que as multinacionais optem por se instalar na Irlanda. E, tendo sido capaz de atrair investimento externo de tamanha magnitude, é inquestionável que a Irlanda está a fazer alguma coisa bem.
Os liberais gostam de utilizar o exemplo a Irlanda. Principalmente por ser um exemplo de sucesso. Pela mesma razão, por ser um exemplo riqueza, os socialistas não gostam do mesmo.
Felizmente para os liberais, a Irlanda não é o único país europeu com reformas fiscais que provocaram mudança e crescimento económico. Infelizmente para Portugal, os países que optaram pela mesma metodologia fiscal, através duma simplificação que promoveu estabilidade dando tranquilidade às empresas e investidores – Eslovénia, Checa, Eslováquia, Croácia, Estónia, etc., – já nos ultrapassaram.
Façamos um pequeno exercício de comparação sobre decisões políticas no enquadramento de salários mínimos para perceber a diferença. A distinção entre os salários mínimos em países pobres (Portugal) e/ou em países ricos (Holanda, Luxemburgo) resulta de algo muito simples.
Na Holanda e no Luxemburgo, os Governos optaram por criar as condições que originaram crescimento e uma economia forte, possibilitando, desse modo, um dinamismo empresarial que cria riqueza. Daqui emergiram duas coisas: Primeiro, as empresas têm capacidade para pagar salários mais altos; Segundo, mesmo cobrando impostos mais baixos, os Governos destes países obtêm mais receitas fiscais.
Em Portugal, a opção governativa, principalmente a dos governos de esquerda, foi precisamente a contrária. Forçaram, por decreto, o aumento do salário mínimo sem criar condições para o crescimento económico. Resultado? Cada vez somos mais pobres.
Dito isto, não é possível fazer sempre a mesma coisa e esperar resultados diferentes. Alguns keynesianos, especialmente os socialistas, têm de aprender isto. É urgente quebrar este ciclo constante de mais pobreza.
Keynes disse que “no longo prazo estaremos todos mortos”, para justificar medidas a curto prazo. Os keynesianos também precisam de aprender que nós poderemos estar mortos no longo prazo, mas a nossa dívida, cujos efeitos são principalmente sentidos no futuro, não estará. Não devíamos fazer com que os nossos filhos (e netos) não pagassemas nossas dívidas?
Por fim, procurando dar um exemplo mais próximo do socialismo, porque é que os países ricos nórdicos jamais serão um problema para os liberais? Não são socialistas, são sociais-democratas, respeitam o dinheiro dos contribuintes gastando o menos possível, não diferenciam entre o público e o privado, pois privilegiam a iniciativa privada completando-a apenas quando necessário, os sindicatos estão ao serviço dos seus membros em vez de serem instrumentos ao serviço de um projecto de poder e, para além de advogarem um Estado pequeno, também não têm salário mínimo.
Portugal é um país rico em socialismo. É por isso que a pobreza é abundante. A solução é simples. Mais crescimento económico (opção que terá efeitos endógenos e exógenos).
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-01-31 | Categories: conhecimento, curiosidades, economia, gestão pública, política | Tags: ECO, economia, fiscalidade, Irlanda, keynes, liberalismo | Leave a comment
Hitler? A communist?

Elon Musk has become a huge source of misinformation. Especially with regard to ideology and political thought.
The fact that Hitler was against liberal democracy and capitalism does not mean he was a communist.
They (he and Alice Weidel) should read Mein Kampf.
In it Hitler clearly expresses his hatred for the evils that he believed were harming the world: Judaism and Marxism (which were the main evils of the world).
How about this quote from Mein Kampf?
“The internationalization of our German economic system, that is to say, the transference of our productive forces to the control of Jewish international finance, can be completely carried out only in a State that has been politically Bolshevized. But the Marxist fighting forces, commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot finally smash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help from outside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance.
Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against Germany taking place in any part of the world the Jew is always the instigator. In peace-time, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist stock-exchange Press systematically stirred up hatred against Germany, until one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself at the service of the world coalition, even against the real interests of its own people.
The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. The Bolshevization of Germany, that is to say, the extermination of the patriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German Labour to bear the yoke of international Jewish finance – that is only the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally subjugating the world to its rule.”
Hitler defended a social vision based on two vectors. On one side, a conservative society through a severe, typically military discipline. On the other, a völkisch nationalism to support the superiority of the Aryan race.
Yes. Hitler did not believe in liberal democracy, capitalism and parliamentarism. But before anything else, Hitler was anti-semitic and anti-marxist.
Say that Hitler was communist is a complete nonsense.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2025-01-14 | Categories: opinion | Tags: Alice Weidel, Elon Musk, ideology, Political Thought, politics | Leave a comment
Cunhal parle
O PCP nega que esta entrevista a Álvaro Cunhal por Oriana Fallacci tenha acontecido. Isto apesar de ser referenciada por muitas fontes.
O original foi publicado no L’Europeo a 6 de Junho de 1975, e, posteriormente em francês, no Paris Match de 28 de Junho, que aqui reproduzo.
O Círculo de Leitores publicou o livro “Entrevista com a História” (1975), onde foram reunidas várias entrevistas publicadas no “Europeo” durante os anos 70. Eu tenho uma versão em espanhol. A entrevista ao Cunhal está lá.
Reafirmo. Dizer que o Álvaro Cunhal defendia um modelo de constituição diferente do que vigorava na ex-URSS é um insulto à memória do histórico líder comunista português.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2024-12-02 | Categories: conhecimento, curiosidades, democracia, liberdade, opinião, política | Tags: comunismo, Cunhal, democracia, futuro, mentalidade, oriana fallaci, pcp, política, responsabilidade, valores | Leave a comment
Donald Trump vs Javier Milei

Donald Trump
Politicamente é um conservador nacionalista; economicamente um protecionista;
Não respeita a Ordem Internacional Liberal, nem tem consideração pela globalização, defendendo abertamente políticas expansionistas (quasi imperialistas) que desrespeitam a soberania e as fronteiras de outros países;
Contrariamente ao que era habitual ver o partido Republicano defender, Trump advoga um Estado maior;
Como Presidente, para além das contas públicas norte-americanas se terem agravado, o “sistema” foi ocupado pelos seus;
Elogia e tem admiração por autocratas e ditadores, incluindo comunistas.
Javier Milei
É política e economicamente um liberal (libertário);
Defende o mercado e o comércio internacional;
Respeita a Ordem internacional e a soberania dos Estados;
Como Presidente, reduziu o tamanho e a dimensão do Estado eliminando cargos supérfluos, cortou 30% da despesa pública, tendo a Argentina atingido um excedente orçamental;
Critica sistematicamente os governos e as políticas socialistas e comunistas.
Dizer que são iguais por ambos terem sido os candidatos da “direita” é um absurdo. São mais as diferenças do que as parecenças
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2024-11-04 | Categories: opinião, política, responsabilidade, valores | Tags: Argentina, conservadorismo, direito internacional, Donald Trump, EUA, Javier Milei, liberalismo | Leave a comment
About Freedom!
“But I wish to add here that economic intervention, even the piecemeal methods advocated here, will tend to increase the power of the state. Interventionism is therefore extremely dangerous. This is not a decisive argument against it; state power must always remain a dangerous though necessary evil. But it should be a warning that if we relax our watchfulness, and if we do not strengthen our democratic institutions while giving more power to the state by interventionist ‘planning’, then we may lose our freedom. And if freedom is lost, everything is lost, including ‘planning’. For why should plans for the welfare of the people be carried out if the people have no power to enforce them? Only freedom can make security secure.
We thus see that there is not only a paradox of freedom but also a paradox of state planning. If we plan too much, if we give too much power to the state, then freedom will be lost, and that will be the end of planning.
Such considerations lead us back to our plea for piecemeal, and against Utopian or holistic, methods of social engineering. And they lead us back to our demand that measures should be planned to fight concrete evils rather than to establish some ideal good. State intervention should be limited to what is really necessary for the protection of freedom.
But it is not enough to say that our solution should be a minimum solution; that we should be watchful; and that we should not give more power to the state than is necessary for the protection of freedom.”
=====
When celebrating freedom, it is important to remember that freedom is fragile, has a measure, and a cost.
If there is one thing I have learned from thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, Friedrich von Hayek, etc., as well as from their nemeses, it is that freedom depends on the individual and his conscience, and that the measure of freedom must be balanced. It cannot be excessive or insufficient. It must be fair and proportional, equitable to each and every citizen.
The same assumption applies to any entity, public or private. Neither companies nor the State should have prerogatives that allow them to abuse.
Abuse, wherever it comes from, destroys freedom transforming it into oppression.
There is no real difference between abuse by a citizen, a company, or the State. Just a matter of degree.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2024-04-25 | Categories: conhecimento, democracia, estado, opinião, opinion, política, politics, responsabilidade, valores | Tags: citizen, democracy, freedom, Karl Popper, politics, society, values | Leave a comment
Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology
A close read of Hamas’s founding documents clearly shows their intentions
By Bruce Hoffman
“Not every German who bought a copy of Mein Kampf necessarily read it … But it might be argued that had more non-Nazi Germans read it before 1933 and had the foreign statesmen of the world perused it carefully while there was still time, both Germany and the world might have been saved from catastrophe.”
William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
How many Israelis, or Jews, or anyone else for that matter, have read the 1988 Hamas Covenant or the revised charter that was issued in 2017? With 36 articles of only a few paragraphs’ length each in the former, and 42 concise statements of general principles and objectives in the latter, both are considerably shorter and more digestible than the 782-page original German-language edition of Mein Kampf. Moreover, unlike Hitler’s seminal work, which was not published in English until March 1939, excellent English translations of both the original Hamas Covenant and its successor can easily be found on the internet.
Released on August 18, 1988, the original covenant spells out clearly Hamas’s genocidal intentions. Accordingly, what happened in Israel on Saturday is completely in keeping with Hamas’s explicit aims and stated objectives. It was in fact the inchoate realization of Hamas’s true ambitions.
The most relevant of the document’s 36 articles can be summarized as falling within four main themes:
- The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
- The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
- The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
- The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories.
Thus, as fighting rages in Israel and Gaza, and may yet escalate and spread, pleas for moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace are destined to find no purchase with Hamas. The covenant makes clear that holy war, divinely ordained and scripturally sanctioned, is in Hamas’s DNA.
Israel’s Complete and Utter Destruction
The covenant opens with a message that precisely encapsulates Hamas’s master plan. Quoting Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a constituent member (Article 2), the document proclaims, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
Lest there be any doubt about Hamas’s sanguinary aims toward Israel and the Jewish people, the introduction goes on to explain:
This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious … It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps.
After some general explanatory language about Hamas’s religious foundation and noble intentions, the covenant comes to the Islamic Resistance Movement’s raison d’être: the slaughter of Jews. “The Day of Judgement will not come about,” it proclaims, “until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
Article 11 spells out why this annihilation of Jews is required. Palestine is described as an “Islamic Waqf”—an endowment predicated on Muslim religious, education, or charitable principles and therefore inviolate to any other peoples or religions. Accordingly, the territory that now encompasses Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank is
consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up … This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.
In sum, any compromise over this land, including the moribund two-state solution, much less coexistence among faiths and peoples, is forbidden.
Holy War
Article 12 links the exclusive Muslim right to the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River with the religious obligation incumbent upon all Muslims to wage a war of religious purification. “Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy becomes the individual duty of every Moslem [sic], male or female”—a point later reiterated in Articles 14 and 15.
Article 15, moreover, highlights the importance of inculcating this mindset in children. “It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).” Along these lines, Article 30 also points out that jihad is not confined to the carrying of arms and the confrontation of the enemy: “Writers, intellectuals, media people, orators, educaters [sic]” are called upon to “fulfill their duty, because of the ferocity of the Zionist offensive and the Zionist influence in many countries exercised through financial and media control, as well as the consequences that all this lead to in the greater part of the world.”
Nothing Is Negotiable
Article 13 rejects any kind of negotiations for, or peaceful resolution of, Jewish and Palestinian territorial claims to the land. On this point, the covenant is completely transparent: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.” Nor are these words historical artifacts. Hamas “military” communiqués heralding the triumphs of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood end with the words “It is a jihad of victory or martyrdom.”
Indeed, this part of the covenant stresses that:
The covenant further says of international negotiations that the “Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.”
Base Anti-Semitism
The covenant is especially noteworthy for its trafficking in odious calumnies and conspiracy theories about the Jewish people and the alleged superhuman influence and power that they exercise over all mankind. “In their Nazi treatment [of other peoples], the Jews made no exception for women or children,” Article 20 begins. “Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honor. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals.”
Article 22 advances this theme. Channeling the fantastical arguments of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which is discussed in Article 32), Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and the Ku Klux Klan, it elaborates on the depth and breadth of Jewish perfidy. The language of this article is so unhinged that it is worth quoting in full:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realization of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
Article 28 continues this theme and again cites various civic organizations and fraternal orders as the malign vessels through which the Jewish people relentlessly pursue their goal of global domination. Alcoholism and drug addiction are integral tools of the Jews’ nefarious plot:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.
After Palestine, Article 32 explains, “the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.” Standing against this overwhelming force is Hamas—“the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road.”
Tucked into Article 31, toward the end of the delineation of its three dozen guiding principles, Hamas claims that all faiths can “coexist in peace and quiet with each other” under its unique “wing of Islam.” But lest anyone be lulled into believing the promise of this paradise on Earth, Hamas demands as the price of entry full allegiance and unquestioning compliance with its rule: “It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror.”
A Kinder, Gentler Charter?
On May 1, 2017, Hamas issued a revised charter. Gone were the “vague religious rhetoric and outlandish utopian pronouncements” of the earlier document, according to analysis prepared for the Institute of Palestine Studies. Instead, the new charter was redolent of “straightforward and mostly pragmatic political language” that had “shifted the movement’s positions and policies further toward the spheres of pragmatism and nationalism as opposed to dogma and Islamism.” Nonetheless, the analyst was struck by “the movement’s adherence to its founding principles” alongside newly crafted, “carefully worded” language suggesting moderation and flexibility.
Israel immediately dismissed the group’s effort to promote a kinder, gentler image of its once avowedly bloodthirsty agenda. “Hamas is attempting to fool the world, but it will not succeed,” a spokesperson from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office predicted.
In fact, the new document differs little from its predecessor. Much like the original, the new document asserts Hamas’s long-standing goal of establishing a sovereign, Islamist Palestinian state that extends, according to Article 2, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Lebanese border to the Israeli city of Eilat—in other words, through the entirety of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. And it is similarly unequivocal about “the right of return” of all Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars (Article 12)—which is portrayed as “a natural right, both individual and collective,” divinely ordained and “inalienable.” That right, therefore “cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international,” thus again rendering negotiations or efforts to achieve any kind of political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians irrelevant, void, or both. Article 27 forcefully reinforces this point: “There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.”
The most striking departure from the 1988 charter is that the 2017 statement of principles and objectives now claims that Hamas is not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist and, accordingly, sees “Zionists” and not “Jews” as the preeminent enemy and target of its opprobrium. The revised document therefore modulates the blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric of its predecessor but once again decries Zionism as central to a dark, conspiratorial plot of global dimensions.
For centuries, Jews have been blamed for causing the anti-Semitism directed against them. The new Hamas charter perpetuates this libel, arguing, “It is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity” and who are therefore responsible for the conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
The Zionist project, according to Article 14, is a “racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.” Article 15 goes on to claim that Zionism is the enemy not just of the Palestinian people but of all Muslims, and that it poses “a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability.” The following article then attempts to thread the needle between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism: “Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion.”
Although the new charter lacks the febrile denunciations of “initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences” of its predecessor, it makes Hamas’s position on Israel’s existence abundantly clear. “The establishment of ‘Israel’ is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,” Article 18 states, “and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah.” Driving home this point, the new Article 19 proclaims, “There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation [sic] or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.”
As for the promise of peace between Israel and Palestine expressed in the 1993 Oslo Accords, Article 21 is explicit in stating Hamas’s rejection of that landmark agreement: “Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them.”
Hamas affirms, instead, its commitment to liberating Palestine by force. “Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws,” the document states. “At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.”
Perhaps the most astonishing statement in the entire new document—issued by a terrorist group that has forbade elections in Gaza since 2007—is the fatuous claim in Article 29 that “Hamas believes in, and adheres to, managing its Palestinian relations on the basis of pluralism, democracy, national partnership, acceptance of the other and the adoption of dialogue.”
Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose
In the British historian Richard J. Evans’ magisterial account of the Third Reich, he recounts the reflections of a young German woman who’d read Mein Kampf in 1933: “Like many of her upper-middle-class friends, she discounted the violence and antisemitism of the National Socialists as passing excesses which would soon disappear.” Until October 7, 2023, many in Palestine, Israel, and elsewhere may similarly have dismissed or discounted the acuity of Hamas’s aims and ambitions, its true objectives, and its as-yet-unfulfilled master plan as stated in both the 1988 and 2017 documents. Few are as ignorant or uncomprehending now.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2023-11-11 | Categories: opinion, politics, relações internacionais | Tags: bruce hoffman, genocide, hamas, hatred, israel, palestinians, The Atlantic | Leave a comment
Free Palestine from Hamas
1. Hamas, founded by Imam Ahmed Yassin, is a Sunni Islamic political and military organization that advocates armed resistance and opposed the Israel-PLO Letters of Mutual Recognition and the Oslo Accords because of support the two-state solution and renounce the “use of terrorism and other acts of violence”.
2. Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections, obtaining a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council of the Gaza Strip, with 75 of the 132 seats. However, it was only in 2007, after an intense dispute with Fatah, that it took full control of the Gaza Strip. Since then, no more elections were held, and Hamas has governed autocratically.
3. We cannot confuse Hamas with the Palestinian people because the latter is hostage to the former. A study on the West Bank and Gaza Strip was recently published by the Arab Barometer revealing that most Palestinians do not support the governance or ideology of Hamas, nor its objective of eliminating Israel. Additionally, 73% of Palestinians prefer a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel, with 58% opting for coexistence between two states.
4. Hamas has no interest in the security and well-being of the Palestinian people. Ali Baraka, head of Hamas’s external relations, recently summarized the two world views: “Israelis are known for loving life. We, on the other hand, sacrifice ourselves. We consider our dead to be martyrs.” In other words, for Hamas, civilians are not mere human shields. They are also potential martyrs. Additionally, we can recall Hamas’ options after Israel’s unilateral exit from Gaza (2005). Hamas, instead of building infrastructure and developing the economy, preferred transform Gaza into a base for its terrorist activities, with paramilitary installations in civilian buildings, spent resources and money on a network of tunnels with more than 500 km (for comparison, the tunnels of the Moscow metro have 397 km) that pass under homes and hospitals, without having built shelters for the population. Today, is clear that the purpose of the tunnel network is to store weapons and ammunition, facilitate the mobility of resources for guerrilla warfare, and to imprison hostages.
5. When we compare the situation between Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Fatah) we see differences. Despite several constraints, including territorial ones, the management of Fatah and Hamas provides different realities of life for Palestinians.
On the Palestinian side, hoping that as soon as military operations cease it will be possible to begin negotiations aimed at a peaceful implementation of the two-state solution, Mustafa Barghouti, secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative (a political party that is an alternative to Hamas and Fatah), seems to me a good option. I hope he is available to do what Arafat and Abbas were afraid to do. Because Hamas, nor Fatah, will not give up power easily.
If Hamas were to release all the hostages, Israel would be without arguments to continue its military operations in Gaza. Are Ismail Haniyeh, Ali Baraka and other Hamas leaders willing to do that? The intention expressed by Hamas to only release international hostages is not a good sign.
I do believe that Israelis and Palestinians should live in peace.
I totally support a cease-fire. But a cease-fire must be demanded to both parts in conflict.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2023-11-03 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: Gaza, hamas, peace, two state solution | Leave a comment
What Palestinians Really Think of Hamas
Foreign Affairs
Before the War, Gaza’s Leaders Were Deeply Unpopular—but an Israeli Crackdown Could Change That
By Amaney A. Jamal and Michael Robbins October 25, 2023
Since Hamas’s atrocious attacks on October 7 left more than 1,400 Israelis dead in a single day, Israel’s response has exacted a heavy toll on the population of Gaza. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, so far more than 6,000 Gazans have been killed and more than 17,000 injured in Israel’s aerial bombardment. The casualties could quickly climb much higher if Israel goes ahead with its expected ground invasion. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Knesset member Ariel Kallner, and other prominent officials have called for a military campaign that covers the entire territory of Gaza. Israeli missiles have already destroyed around five percent of all buildings in Gaza, including in areas where Palestinians sought shelter after heeding Israeli calls to evacuate their homes. Some of Israel’s top officials, invoking Hamas’s success in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, have in effect declared that all Gazans are part of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure and complicit in the group’s atrocities—and are therefore legitimate targets of Israeli retaliation.
The argument that the entire population of Gaza can be held responsible for Hamas’s actions is quickly discredited when one looks at the facts. Arab Barometer, a research network where we serve as co-principal investigators, conducted a survey in Gaza and the West Bank days before the Israel-Hamas war broke out. The findings, published here for the first time, reveal that rather than supporting Hamas, the vast majority of Gazans have been frustrated with the armed group’s ineffective governance as they endure extreme economic hardship. Most Gazans do not align themselves with Hamas’s ideology, either. Unlike Hamas, whose goal is to destroy the Israeli state, the majority of survey respondents favored a two-state solution with an independent Palestine and Israel existing side by side.
Continued violence will not bring the future most Gazans hope for any closer. Instead of stamping out sympathy for terrorism, past Israeli crackdowns that make life more difficult for ordinary Gazans have increased support for Hamas. If the current military campaign in Gaza has a similar effect on Palestinian public opinion, it will further set back the cause of long-term peace.
MOUNTING FRUSTRATION
Arab Barometer’s survey of the West Bank and Gaza, conducted in partnership with the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and with the support of the National Endowment for Democracy, provides a snapshot of the views of ordinary citizens on the eve of the latest conflict. The longest-running and most comprehensive public opinion project in the region, Arab Barometer has run eight waves of surveys covering 16 countries in the Middle East and North Africa since 2006. All surveys are designed to be nationally representative, most of them (including the latest survey in the West Bank and Gaza) are conducted in face-to-face interviews in the respondents’ places of residence, and the collected data is made publicly available. In each country, survey questions aim to measure respondents’ attitudes and values about a variety of economic, political, and international issues.
Our most recent interviews were carried out between September 28 and October 8, surveying 790 respondents in the West Bank and 399 in Gaza. (Interviews in Gaza were completed on October 6.) The survey’s findings reveal that Gazans had very little confidence in their Hamas-led government. Asked to identify the amount of trust they had in the Hamas authorities, a plurality of respondents (44 percent) said they had no trust at all; “not a lot of trust” was the second most common response, at 23 percent. Only 29 percent of Gazans expressed either “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in their government. Furthermore, 72 percent said there was a large (34 percent) or medium (38 percent) amount of corruption in government institutions, and a minority thought the government was taking meaningful steps to address the problem.


When asked how they would vote if presidential elections were held in Gaza and the ballot featured Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and Marwan Barghouti, an imprisoned member of the central committee of Fatah, the party led by Abbas, only 24 percent of respondents said they would vote for Haniyeh. Barghouti received the largest share of support at 32 percent and Abbas received 12 percent. Thirty percent of respondents said they would not participate. Gazans’ opinions of the PA, which governs the West Bank, are not much better. A slight majority (52 percent) believe the PA is a burden on the Palestinian people, and 67 percent would like to see Abbas resign. The people of Gaza are disillusioned not only with Hamas but with the entire Palestinian leadership.
The salience of Gaza’s economic troubles also came through clearly in the survey results. According to the World Bank, the poverty rate in Gaza rose from 39 percent in 2011 to 59 percent in 2021. Many Gazans have struggled to secure basic necessities because of both scarcity and cost. Among survey respondents, 78 percent said that the availability of food was a moderate or severe problem in Gaza, whereas just five percent said it was not a problem at all. A similar proportion (75 percent) reported moderate to severe difficulty affording food even when it was available; only six percent said food affordability was not a problem.
Gazan households have felt the impact of food shortages keenly. Seventy-five percent of respondents reported that they had run out of food and lacked the money to buy more at some point during the previous 30 days. By comparison, in a 2021 Arab Barometer survey, only 51 percent said the same. This change over just two years is alarming. Gazans have been forced to adjust their habits to try to make ends meet, with 75 percent saying they had started buying less preferred or less expensive food and 69 percent saying they had reduced the size of their meals.
Most Gazans attributed the lack of food to internal problems rather than to external sanctions. Israel and Egypt have imposed a blockade on Gaza since 2005, limiting the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. The strength of the blockade has varied, but it grew notably stricter after Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Nevertheless, a plurality of survey respondents (31 percent) identified government mismanagement as the primary cause of food insecurity in Gaza and 26 percent blamed inflation. Only 16 percent blamed externally imposed economic sanctions. In short, Gazans were more likely to blame their material predicament on Hamas’s leadership than on Israel’s economic blockade. Since the time of the survey, however, this perception may have changed. Israel cut off water, food, fuel, and electricity supplies to Gaza following the October 7 attacks, plunging the territory into a deep humanitarian crisis. Some international aid has entered Gaza since, but the suffering the Palestinians have experienced has likely hardened their attitudes in ways that could undermine long-term peace and stability.
NO MORE POLITICS AS USUAL
Overall, the survey responses indicate that Gazans desire political change. In an eight-point decline since 2021, just 26 percent said the government was very (three percent) or largely (23 percent) responsive to the needs of the people. When asked what is the most effective way for ordinary people to influence the government, a plurality said “nothing is effective.” The next most popular answer was to use personal connections to reach a government official. Most Gazans saw no avenue for publicly expressing their grievances with the Hamas-led government. Only 40 percent said that freedom of expression was guaranteed to a great or moderate extent, and 68 percent believed that the right to participate in a peaceful protest was not protected or was protected only to a limited extent under Hamas rule.

About half of Gazans expressed support for democracy: 48 percent affirmed that “democracy is always preferable to any other kind of government.” A smaller proportion of respondents (23 percent) indicated a lack of faith in any type of regime, agreeing with the statement, “For people like me, it doesn’t matter what kind of government we have.” Only 26 percent agreed that “under some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable.” (This last finding is similar to poll results in the United States, where in a 2022 survey, one in five adults aged 41 or younger agreed with the statement, “Dictatorship could be good in certain circumstances.”)
Given the low opinion most Gazans hold of their government, it is unsurprising that their disapproval extends to Hamas as a political party. Just 27 percent of respondents selected Hamas as their preferred party, slightly less than the proportion who favored Fatah (30 percent), the party that is led by Abbas and that governs the West Bank. Hamas’s popularity in Gaza has slipped as well, falling from 34 percent support in the 2021 survey. There is notable demographic variation in the recent responses, too. Thirty-three percent of adults under 30 expressed support for Hamas, compared with 23 percent of those 30 and older. And poorer Gazans were less likely than their wealthier counterparts to support Hamas. Among those who cannot cover their basic expenses, just 25 percent favored the party in power. Among those who can, the figure rose to 33 percent. The fact that the people most affected by dire economic conditions and those who remember life before Hamas rule were more likely to reject the party underlines the limits of Gazans’ support for Hamas’s movement.


VISIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Leadership style is not the only thing Gazans find objectionable about Hamas. By and large, Gazans do not share Hamas’s goal of eliminating the state of Israel. When presented with three possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as well as an option to choose “other”), the majority of survey respondents (54 percent) favored the two-state solution outlined in the 1993 Oslo accords. In this scenario, the state of Palestine would sit alongside the state of Israel, their borders based on the de facto boundary that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War. The level of support for this resolution has not changed much since 2021; in that survey, 58 percent of respondents in Gaza selected the two-state solution.
It is somewhat surprising how little traction alternative political arrangements had gained among Gazans before the onset of recent hostilities, given how implausible a two-state solution now seems. The survey presented two other options: an Israeli-Palestinian confederation—in which both states are independent but remain deeply linked and permit the free movement of citizens—and a single state for both Jews and Arabs. These garnered 10 percent and nine percent support, respectively.
Overall, 73 percent of Gazans favored a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the eve of Hamas’s October 7 attack, just 20 percent of Gazans favored a military solution that could result in the destruction of the state of Israel. A clear majority (77 percent) of those who provided this response were also supporters of Hamas, amounting to around 15 percent of the adult population. Among the remaining respondents who favored armed action, 13 percent reported no political affiliation.
Gazans’ views on the normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel, meanwhile, have been consistently negative. Only 10 percent expressed approval of this initiative in the most recent survey—the same percentage as in 2021. Many Gazans likely recognize that Arab solidarity is key to securing a political arrangement that includes an independent Palestinian state. If Arab countries were to settle their differences with Israel without making the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a precondition for normalization, any lingering hopes for a two-state solution would evaporate.
Before Hamas’s attack on Israel, Gazans’ foreign policy views suggested both alignment with certain U.S. policy priorities and mistrust of the United States. Seventy-one percent opposed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Thirty-seven percent expressed a wish for Gaza to develop stronger economic ties to the United States—higher than the proportion that wanted to deepen economic relations with Iran or Russia (32 percent in both cases). Only 15 percent of Gazans, however, believed that U.S. President Joe Biden’s policies had been good or very good for the Arab world. And in the past few weeks, approval of both Biden and the United States has certainly declined, given the broad perception in Gaza, the West Bank, and in the region’s Arab countries that Washington has come to the aid of Israel at the expense of Gaza.
A final finding—now backed by countless media reports of Gazans’ anguish as escalating violence forces them to flee their homes—is the strength of people’s connection to the land on which they live. The vast majority of Gazans surveyed—69 percent—said they have never considered leaving their homeland. This is a higher proportion than residents of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia who were asked the same question. (For all of these countries, the most recent available data comes from Arab Barometer’s 2021–22 survey wave.) Gazans face a series of challenges, from a worsening economic crisis to an unresponsive government and a seemingly impossible path to independent statehood, but they are steadfast in their desire to remain in Gaza.
BREAK THE CYCLE
The results of the Arab Barometer survey paint a bleak picture of Gaza in the days before the October 7 attacks. The Hamas government, unable to address citizens’ vital concerns, had lost the public’s confidence. Few Gazans supported Hamas’s goal of destroying the state of Israel, which left Gaza’s leaders and its population divided over the future direction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The vast majority of Gazans strongly favored a peaceful solution, and they yearned for leaders who could both deliver such a solution and improve Gazans’ overall quality of life. So far, however, the policies of their own government and of the Israeli government have prevented progress on both fronts.
Living conditions for Palestinians are better in the West Bank than they are in Gaza, but the economic and political situation is still grim. Nearly half of survey respondents in the West Bank (47 percent) reported going hungry in the last month, and just 19 percent trusted the West Bank government led by Fatah—an even lower percentage than that of Gazans who trusted Hamas’s government. Yet governance failures have not driven West Bank Palestinians to back Hamas. When asked which party they feel closest to, just 17 percent of respondents in the West Bank reported support for Hamas. The amount of support for Fatah was the same as in Gaza (30 percent). With regard to individual leaders, however, the responses of West Bank residents reflected widespread disaffection—and particular dissatisfaction with Abbas. In a hypothetical presidential election, Barghouti was their top choice, as he was in Gaza, at 35 percent, while only 11 percent picked Haniyeh, the Hamas leader, and six percent chose Abbas, the incumbent leader in the West Bank. Nearly half of respondents—47 percent—said they would not participate.
In terms of attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, support for the two-state solution in the West Bank was slightly lower than in Gaza (49 percent versus 54 percent), and opposition to Arab-Israeli normalization was slightly higher. Only five percent of respondents in the West Bank approved of the regional rapprochement, compared with 10 percent of Gazans. Although the differences were small, these relatively hardened attitudes in the West Bank were likely a result of tensions between Palestinians and Israeli settlers and soldiers in recent months. The survey’s finding that roughly half of Palestinians still support the two-state solution may offer some hope for peace in the long term, but the results do not inspire much confidence in short-term stability. The deep unpopularity of Palestinian leadership, in the West Bank in particular, calls into question the feasibility of reestablishing the Palestinian Authority’s control over Gaza, which some media outlets have suggested as the next step in reconstruction after Israel’s military campaign against Hamas is complete.
As Israel’s operations in Gaza escalate, the war will take an unfathomable toll on civilians. But even if Israel were to “level Gaza,” as some hawkish politicians in the United States have called for, it would fail in its mission to wipe out Hamas. Our research has shown that Israeli crackdowns in Gaza most often lead to increasing support and sympathy for Hamas among ordinary Gazans. Hamas won 44.5 percent of the Palestinian vote in parliamentary elections in 2006, but support for the group plummeted after a military conflict between Hamas and Fatah in June 2007 ended in Hamas’s takeover of Gaza. In a poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in December 2007, just 24 percent of Gazans expressed favorable attitudes toward Hamas. Over the next few years, as Israel tightened its blockade of Gaza and ordinary Gazans felt the effects, approval of Hamas increased, reaching about 40 percent in 2010. Israel partially eased the blockade the same year, and Hamas’s support in Gaza leveled off before declining to 35 percent in 2014. In periods when Israel cracks down on Gaza, Hamas’s hardline ideology seems to hold greater appeal for Gazans. Thus, rather than moving the Israelis and Palestinians toward a peaceful solution, Israeli policies that inflict pain on Gaza in the name of rooting out Hamas are likely to perpetuate the cycle of violence.
To break the cycle, the Israeli government must now exercise restraint. The Hamas-led government may be uninterested in peace, but it is empirically wrong for Israeli political leaders to accuse all Gazans of the same. In fact, most Gazans are open to a permanent, peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet the views of the people who live in Gaza are still often misrepresented in public discourse, even as surveys such as Arab Barometer consistently show how different these narratives are from reality.
In the immediate term, Israeli and especially U.S. leaders need to secure the safety of Gazan civilians, 1.4 million of whom have already been displaced. The United States should partner with the United Nations to create clear humanitarian corridors and protected zones, and Washington should contribute to the UN’s appeal for $300 million in aid to protect Palestinian civilians—a step dozens of U.S. senators have said they will support. Finally, Israel and the United States must recognize that the Palestinian people are essential partners in finding a lasting political settlement, not an obstacle in the way of that worthy goal. If the two countries seek only military solutions, they will likely drive Gazans into the arms of Hamas, guaranteeing renewed violence in the years ahead.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2023-10-27 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: Foreign Affairs, hamas, israel | Leave a comment
Les Yeux Ouverts
Je condamne l’ignorance qui règne en ce moment dans les démocraties aussi bien que dans les régimes totalitaires. Cette ignorance est si forte, souvent si totale, qu’on la dirait voulue par le système, sinon par le régime. J’ai solvente réfléchi à ce que pourrait être l’éducation de l’enfant. Je pense qu’il faudrait des études de base, très simples, où l’enfant apprendrait qu’il existe au sein de l’univers, sur une planète dont il devra plus tard ménager les ressources, qu’il dépend de l’air, de l’eau, de tous les êtres Vivants, et que la moindre erreur ou la moindre violence risque de tout détruire. Il apprendrait que les hommes se sont entre-tués dans des guerres qui n’ont jamais fait que produire d’autres guerres, et que chaque pays arrange son histoire, mensongèrement, de façon à flatter son orgueil. On lui apprendrait assez du passé pour qu’il se sente relié aux hommes qui l’ont précédé, pour qu’il les admire là où ils méritent de l’être, sans s’en faire des idoles, non plus que du present ou d’un hypothétique avenir. On essaierait de le familiariser à la fois avec les livres et les choses; il saurait le nom des plantes, il connaîtrait les animaux sans se livrer aux hideuses vivisections imposes aux enfants et aux très jeunes adolescents sous prétexte de biologie ; il apprendrait à donner les premiers soins aux blessés; son education sexuelle comprendrait la presence à un accouchement, son éducation mentale la vue des grands malades et des morts. On lui donnerait aussi les simples notions de morale sans laquelle la vie en société est impossible, instruction que les écoles élémentaires et moyennes n’osent plus donner dans ce pays. En matière de religion, on ne lui imposerait aucune pratique ou aucun dogme, mais on lui dirait quelque chose de toutes les grandes religions du monde, et surtout de celles du pays où il se trouve, pour éveiller en lui le respect et détruire d’avance certains odieux préjugés. On lui apprendrait à aimer le travail quando le travail est utile, et à ne pas se laisser prendre à l’imposture publicitaire, en commençant par celle qui lui vante des friandises plus ou moins frelatées, en lui préparant des caries et des diabetes futurs. Il y a certainement un moyen de parler aux enfants de choses véritablement importantes plus tôt qu’on ne le fait.
ET LE FÉMINISME?
Marguerite Yourcenar – Je suis contre le particularisme de pays, de religion, d’espèce. Ne comptez pas sur moi pour faire du particularisme de sexe. Je crois qu’une bonne femme vaut un homme bon; qu’une femme intelligente vaut un homme intelligent. C’est une vérité simple. S’il s’agit de lutter pour que les femmes, à mérite égal, reçoivent le même salaire qu’un homme, je participe à cette lutte ; s’il s’agit de défendre leur liberté d’utiliser la contraception, je soutiens activement plusieurs organisations de ce genre; s’il s’agit même de l’avortement, au cas où la femme ou l’homme concernés n’auraient pas pu ou pas su prendre leur mesure à temps, je suis pour l’avortement, et j’appartiens à plusieurs sociétés qui aident les femmes en pareil cas, bien que personnellement l’avortement me paraisse toujours un acte très grave. Mais dans nos sociétés surpeuplées, et où, pour la majorité des êtres humains, la misère et l’ignorance régnent, je crois préférable d’arrêter une vie à ses débuts que de la laisser se développer dans des conditions indignes. Quand il s’agit d’éducation, ou d’instruction, je suis bien entendu pour l’égalité des sexes; cela va de soi. S’il s’agit de droits politiques, non seulement de vote, mais de participation au gouvernement, je suis également plus que d’accord, quoique je doute que les femmes puissent, non plus que les hommes, améliorer grand-chose à la détestable situation politique de notre temps, à moins que les uns et les autres et leurs méthodes d’action ne soient profondément changés.
D’autre part, j’ai de fortes objections au féminisme tel qu’il se presente aujourd’hui. La plupart du temps, il est agressif, et ce n’est pas par l’agression qu’on parvient durablement à quelque chose. Ensuite, et ceci sans doute vous paraîtra paradoxal, il est conformiste, du point de vue de l’établissement social, en ce sens que la femme semble aspirer à la liberté et au bonheur du bureaucrate qui part chaque matin, une serviette sous le bras, ou de l’ouvrier qui pointe dans une usine. Cet homo sapiens des sociétés bureaucratiques et technocratiques est l’idéal qu’elle semble vouloir imiter sans voir les frustrations et les dangers qu’il comporte, parce qu’en cela, pareille aux hommes, elle pense en termes de profit immédiat et de « succès » individuel. Je crois que l’important, pour la femme, est de participer le plus possible à toutes les causes utiles, et d’imposer cette participation par sa compétence. Même en plein XIXe siècle, les autorités anglaises se sont montrées brutales et grossières envers Florence Nightingale, à l’hôpital de Scutari : elles n’ont pas pu se passer d’elle. Tout gain obtenu par la femme dans la cause des droits civiques, de l’urbanisme, de l’environnement, de la protection de l’animal, de l’enfant, et des minorités humaines, toute victoire contre la guerre, contre la monstrueuse exploitation de la science en faveur de l’avidité et de la violence, est celle de la femme, sinon du féminisme, et ce sera celle du féminisme par surcroît. Je crois même la femme peut-être plus à même de se charger de ce rôle que l’homme, à cause de son contact journalier avec les réalités de la vie, que l’homme ignore souvent plus qu’elle.
Je trouve aussi regrettable de voir la femme jouer sur les deux tableaux, de voir, par exemple, des revues, pour se conformer à la mode (car les opinions sont aussi des modes) qui publient des articles féministes supposés incendiaires, tout en offrant à leurs lectrices, qui les feuillettent distraitement chez le coiffeur, le même nombre de photographies de jolies filles, ou plutôt de filles qui seraient jolies si elles n’incarnaient trop évidemment des modèles publicitaires; la curieuse psychologie commerciale de notre temps impose ces expressions boudeuses, prétendument séduisantes, aguicheuses ou sensuelles, à moins qu’elles ne frôlent même l’érotisme de la demi-nudité, si l’occasion s’en présente.
Que les féministes acceptent ce peuple de femmes-objets m’étonne. Je m’étonne aussi qu’elles continuent de se livrer de façon grégaire à la mode, comme si la mode se confondait avec l’élégance, et que des millions d’entre elles acceptent, dans une inconscience complète, le supplice de tous ces animaux martyrisés pour essayer sur eux des produits cosmétiques, quand ils n’agonisent pas dans des pièges, ou assommés sur la glace, pour assurer à ces mêmes femmes des parures sanglantes. Qu’elles les acquièrent avec de l’argent librement gagné par elle dans une « carrière » ou offert par un mari ou un amant ne change rien au problème. Aux États-Unis, je crois que le jour où la femme aura réussi à interdire qu’un portrait de jeune fille qui fume d’un petit air de défi pousse le lecteur de magazines à s’acheter des cigarettes que trois lignes presque invisibles au bas de la page déclarent nocives et cancérigènes, la cause des femmes aura fait un grand pas.
Enfin, les femmes qui disent « les hommes » et les hommes qui dissent « les femmes », généralement pour s’en plaindre dans un groupe comme dans l’autre, m’inspirent un immense ennui, comme tous ceux qui ânonnent toutes les formules conventionnelles. Il y a des vertus spécifiquement « féminines » que les féministes font mine de dédaigner, ce qui ne signifie pas d’ailleurs qu’elles aient été jamais l’apanage de toutes les femmes: la douceur, la bonté, la finesse, la délicatesse, vertus si importantes qu’un homme qui n’en posséderait pas au moins une petite part serait une brute et non un homme. Il y a des vertus dites « masculines », ce qui ne signifie pas plus que tous les hommes les possèdent: le courage, l’endurance, l’énergie physique, la maîtrise de soi, et la femme qui n’en détient pas au moins une partie n’est qu’un chiffon, pour ne pas dire une chiffe. J’aimerais que ces vertus complémentaires servent également au bien de tous. Mais supprimer les différences qui existent entre les sexes, si variables et si fluides que ces différences sociales et psychologiques puissent être, me paraît déplorable, comme tout ce qui pousse le genre humain, de notre temps, vers une morne uniformité.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2023-05-02 | Categories: conhecimento, curiosidades, opinião, valores | Tags: feminismo, futuro, Marguerite, sociedade, Yourcenar | Leave a comment
The Age of Stupidity (2)

Before deciding on creation, God was really worried with the consequences of pornography. So, prior to creating Adam and Eve, He manufactured a complete wardrobe for them.
P.S. – It’s not just Critical Theory that’s destroying democracy in America.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2023-03-30 | Categories: conhecimento, ironia, responsabilidade, unidade | Tags: future, irony, society, stupidity | Leave a comment
The Age of stupidity
Posted by VFS | 2023-03-29 | Categories: conhecimento, ironia, responsabilidade, valores | Tags: future, irony, society, stupidity | Leave a comment
Not another Chamberlain moment
Jens Stoltenberg recently said that Russia made a strategic mistake by underestimating the strength, will and ability of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian armed forces, to defend themselves and that it also neglected the determination of NATO and its allies and partners to support Ukraine. And about the support that is being given to Ukraine, it is impossible not to mention the European Union (EU), particularly symbolized in the firm conduct of the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, and of the High Representative/Vice-president Josep Borrell Fontelles.
Nonetheless, we should reflect on the reasons for Vladimir Putin’s underestimation of the NATO and EU resolution on supporting Ukraine. Is there any reason why such a miscalculation has happened? To answer this, it is necessary to review what happened in the last 15 years. How can we classify the Western response to the 2008 Russo-Georgian War? A quick and affirmative reaction is not an adequate description at all. The same can be said about Russia’s annexation of Crimea. So, prior to Russia’s Ukraine invasion the Kremlin evaluated us in Georgia and Crimea, and it is highly likely that Putin’s assessment of the West’s stance on what Russia was doing in its so-called Near Abroad was one of indifference or little concern. Since Russia has not been the object of firm international censure for its military actions in Georgia and Crimea, it is understandable that the Russian authorities have interpreted such position as the prevailing one in future acts of aggression within their area of influence. As such, to a point it is plausible that the Kremlin expected little reaction from NATO and EU with its Ukraine invasion.
History is our greatest teacher. We must learn their lessons and avoid repeating past mistakes. For that purpose, it is necessary to remember what happened. From a historical perspective, is it possible to draw comparisons between Hitler’s and Putin’s expansion policies?
We know what Hitler’s tactics were. The pressures and intimidations on the Austrian Government are well known. And it should be remembered that in the case of the Sudetenland, through local supporters (led by Hitler’s trusted man, Konrad Henlein) acts of subversion were carried out with the aim of provoking justification for a German military intervention. Was not the same methodology observable in Georgia and Crimea? Who were the Kremlin’s friends in Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoyty. And in Crimea? Sergey Aksyonov. And are there similarities between the arguments presented for the interventions on foreign soil? Without a trace of doubt. In both cases, peace operations, minorities protection, ethnic non-discrimination and genocide prevention were reasons invoked (now the Kremlin added denazification).
In a way, we should acknowledge that the atrocities committed by the Third Reich happened with the acquiescence of the western powers. The concessions made to Hitler had the effect of boosting the creation of the Greater Germanic Reich. And Neville Chamberlain unwillingness to let go his appeasement policy played a role in that outcome.
History may not be on the move again, as Arnold Toynbee would say, but there is no doubt that it has a tendency towards repetition. Once again, we are faced with a simple choice: defend or compromise our values and principles. We have ignored the warnings for too long. All those, including Henry Kissinger, who say that we must find a way to save Putin’s face are wrong. Any concessions given to Putin will only motivate him to go further down the path of absolute disrespect for the international order.
Now that we are finally reacting – both the firmness as the intensity and scope of the sanctions being imposed on Russia are unparalleled to what happened in 2008 and 2014 – the last thing we need is another Chamberlain moment. If our position weakens, Putin will do whatever and wherever he likes. Concerning Europe, this is what the Kremlin desires: Russians want to be in, throw the Americans out and keep the Germans down.
In times of uncertainty, there can be no doubt about the measure of our resolve. There is only one answer against those who uphold totalitarian ideas: an unequivocally reaffirmation of the democratic principles. We must demonstrate our awareness of democracy and freedom costs and our willingness to defend them.
It may take time and it will not be easy. It will require sacrifices. But the price will be much higher if Ukraine falls. There is a difference of substance between knowing the price and the value of anything. Both democracy and freedom are priceless.
If Ukraine falls, we are next.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2023-02-20 | Categories: democracia, opinion, politics, relações internacionais, responsabilidade | Tags: democracy, EU, freedom, International law, Josep Borrell, Putin, Ukraine, Ursula von der Leyen, War, Zelensky | Leave a comment
Uma nova forma de estar na política
No dia 25 de Abril de 2017, reuni-me no café Piolho com pessoas do Porto e de Lisboa para discutir a possibilidade da formação de um partido liberal. Nesse dia fiz duas observações:
1. É para fazer uma maratona ou uma corrida de 100 metros? Para uma corrida de 100 metros não contem comigo.
2. Embora seja legítimo que neste projecto cada um tenha as suas motivações e ambições pessoais, o partido não pode ser a soma dessas motivações e ambições, mas sim algo muito superior a nós. Terá de ser uma visão de futuro ao serviço dos portugueses.
O tempo acabou por me responder.
Sou fundador e membro (agora demissionário) da Comissão Executiva da Iniciativa Liberal (IL). Mesmo antes de ter ajudado a fundar a IL defendia que não bastava apenas uma nova forma de fazer política. Também advogava uma nova forma de estar na política, assente em dois vectores. Primeiro, a Liberdade implica Responsabilidade e Responsabilização. Segundo, a verdade não pode estar subordinada às conveniências momentâneas. Por isso, não basta o que dizemos. A coerência entre o pensamento e acção é também um valor indispensável. É-o, por maioria de razão, num partido político.
Desde o início que deixei muito claro o que pensava. Quer relativamente à articulação entre as dimensões interna e externa – descentralização; independência e autonomia dos órgãos [das funções e competências (observância ao Princípio da Separação de Poderes)] –, quer relativamente ao posicionamento e à mensagem política – respeito pelas opções individuais e defesa inequívoca dos direitos sociais, económicos e políticos de cada um; menos Estado; mais liberdade; crescimento económico. Fi-lo antes do partido ser partido. Fi-lo enquanto membro do partido. Fá-lo-ei sempre, respeitando a decisão dos membros, especialmente as que forem tomadas em Convenção.
Sem excepção, todas as três pessoas – Miguel Ferreira da Silva, Carlos Guimarães Pinto e João Cotrim de Figueiredo – que já lideraram a IL merecem reconhecimento. Todavia, reconhecimento não implica cegueira. Nem tampouco obediência cega. A lealdade é uma via de dois sentidos. E a lealdade institucional tem limites.
Por isso, e por achar que é no interior dos órgãos que se expressam posições, várias vezes manifestei a minha discordância sobre determinadas decisões na Comissão Executiva. Posso estar enganado, mas penso que isto é transparência. O mundo não é preto ou branco. O maniqueísmo ou o pensamento binário não é algo com que me identifique. Não há ninguém que esteja sempre certo, nem ninguém que esteja sempre errado. Como tal, apoiei medidas por concordar com as razões das mesmas e critiquei outras com base no mesmo pressuposto. Estranhei a procura de unanimismos e estranho que uma opinião diferente possa ser entendida como oposição ou “traição”. Felizmente, não fui o único a discordar em várias situações.
Com a demissão do João Cotrim de Figueiredo, a IL vai entrar numa nova fase. Fui conselheiro nacional na vigência do Miguel e vogal nas Comissões Executivas do Carlos e do João. Se o João se recandidatasse não aceitaria fazer parte da sua equipa e não farei parte da equipa do Rui. Em termos pessoais não tenho nada contra nenhum dos candidatos. Ambos são pessoas decentes. A continuidade ideológica está garantida. Mas isso, por si só, é insuficiente. É preciso algo mais. É essencial fortalecer o carácter reformista da IL e aproveitar a energia individual de todos os membros e simpatizantes para fazer crescer o liberalismo.
Já expressei o meu apoio à Carla Castro. Reitero-o aqui. A Carla já provou o seu valor. A sua gestão do Gabinete de Estudos foi irrepreensível. Foi instrumental na elaboração dos programas eleitorais. Como assessora foi imprescindível para as boas prestações do João. A sua competência na Comissão Parlamentar de Orçamento e Finanças é inegável. A sua capacidade de trabalho é inquestionável. A sua educação e moderação é notável. A sua empatia é uma certeza. A sua liderança é inspiradora. E a sua firmeza vai surpreender quem não a conhece.
A Carla não se serve das pessoas. Pelo contrário. Serve as pessoas e motiva-as. Não tenho a menor dúvida de que a Carla Castro é quem melhor representa uma nova forma de estar na política.
Publicado no Observador, 30 de Outubro de 2022
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-11-05 | Categories: democracia, opinião, política, portugal, valores | Tags: iniciativa liberal, partidos, responsabilidade, sociedade, valores, verdade | Leave a comment
Chantagem nuclear
Penso que o objetivo estratégico de Putin continua a ser a divisão do Ocidente.
Apesar de ser imperioso ter alguma prudência, creio que é essencial que o Ocidente se mantenha unido e espero que assim aconteça. Digo isto consciente dos sacrifícios que estão implícitos nesta posição.
Uma escalada para um conflito nuclear é possível. Porém, qual será o significado que emergirá daqui se perante esta “chantagem nuclear” a resolução do Ocidente esmorecer? Que efeitos devemos considerar?
Para além de se estar a dar tempo a Putin para se rearmar, para se reagrupar e para se consolidar internamente, quando Putin voltar a seguir estes caminhos, algo que não deve ser desconsiderado se tivermos em mente o padrão de comportamento demonstrado desde a intervenção russa na Geórgia, vamos ficar de braços cruzados perante uma nova chantagem nuclear?
Algo que era praticamente impossível há uns tempos – dois lados dentro do regime de Putin – é hoje uma possibilidade.
Isto não significa que a resistência ucraniana e o apoio do Ocidente à mesma não está a ter efeitos positivos?
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-09-21 | Categories: opinião, política, relações internacionais, unidade | Tags: Nuclear, Putin, Ucrânia | Leave a comment
We shall never surrender!
To describe both Europe’s current circumstances and the measure of our resolve, Churchill’s sentence is the most fitting. Against those who uphold totalitarian ideas there is only one position: an unequivocally reaffirmation of democratic principles! One cannot just say. One must also act accordingly. And yes. Democracy and Freedom have costs!
Furthermore, by evoking Churchill and the context in which such words where expressed, we are remembered to what today is at stake. At the time, the choice was between defend or compromise our values and principles. At the time, despite all the warnings, Nazi threats were ignored.
Chamberlain was not willing to let go his appeasement policy. He was so keen to the idea that even after the Anschluss, Chamberlain went to the point of sanction Hitler’s desire on the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia (1938). Only after intense diplomatic pressure of the British (and the French) Government, did the Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš agreed with the demands for Sudeten autonomy. Later that year, the Munich Conference, classified by Chamberlain as the moment of “peace for our time”, handed over the Sudetenland districts to Germany. This signified the first sign of real concession, and we already know what happened next.
Hitler tactics were simple. Through local supporters, preferably with ethnic ties and endowed with political organization, subversive acts would be carried out to provide a pretext for German military action. Who was Hitler’s trusted man in the Sudetenland region? Konrad Henlein.
History is our greatest Teacher. We must learn its lessons. As such, it is primordial to bear in mind that even after all these events, among the British corridors of power there were those who argued for a peace treaty with Hitler. Imagine how history would have been if such moment had happened?
To have a better understanding of the subject under consideration, we also cannot disregard the consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its Secret Protocol, which defined the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence across Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland.
Neither Stalin nor the Bolsheviks ever got over the territory loss caused by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918). The signing of the Treaty was all but peaceful. During the discussion within the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, when Lenin told the delegates that saving the world revolution required validate such shameful peace and if they did not sign, he would resign, he was called a traitor. So, Stalin saw in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact the opportunity to recover Lenin’s lost empire. As we know, in Yalta he went further, and soviet influence reached another level.
The aftermath of the Second World War represented the beginning of a new international framework. Faced with the failure of the League of Nations, the leaders of the Allied countries began a new process of international negotiation that culminated in the creation of a new intergovernmental organization, the United Nations (UN) and with it a new regulation for international law. Key examples are the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The UN Charter codifies the major principles of international relations, varying from sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. One of the objectives expressed in its preamble is “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained” and all UN members are bond to it. Putin’s Russia is no exception.
Danielle Young says that “since its inception, whatever post-war international order that exists has been under siege.” Yes, as we live in a world of nations, we can accept that view. Within the realm of international relations, realism and the importance of power and the balance of power as guarantees of security reigns supreme. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that the current international environment is different from the one that prevailed before the Second World War.
Hans Morgenthau in its 1948 book – Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace – enumerated the six principles of realism. Although he had stressed the significance of foreign policy ethic dimension, policy makers paid little attention to it. Today, unfortunately, two of Morgenthau’s tenets – that realism is a perspective aware of the moral significance of political action; and the moral aspirations of a single community or a state may not be universally valid or shared – are almost forgotten.
Throughout history how many times was language, and ethnic population, and “protection” evoked as an argument to disrespect international law? Putin and his supporters have been mimicking Hitler’s tactics.
Relations between Russia and Georgia began to worsen after the 2003 Georgian Rose Revolution, which caused the downfall of Eduard Shevardnadze and signal a pro-Western foreign policy aiming a European and Euro-Atlantic integration. By April 2008, relations between both countries reached a full diplomatic crisis, and in August Russia invaded Georgia. How did Medvedev justify this decision? Russia wanted to shield and help the two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Concerning the latter Putin also argued that the military intervention was to protect Osseitians from Georgian “genocide.” Who were the Kremlin friends in Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoyty.
In 2014, after the Kremlin loss of political influence due to Maidan Revolution and the consequent ousting of Viktor Yanukovych and his government, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Once again, Putin employed Nazi tactics. Pro-Russian demonstrations were held in Sevastopol, masked Russian troops without insignia took over the Supreme Council of Crimea and Sergey Aksyonov, a declared Kremlin supporter, with the presence of the gunmen armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and rocket launchers, was “elected” Prime Minister of Crimea.
What triggered Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and annex Crimea? His concerns about the people of Crimea ability to freely express their will. That is why Russian troops occupied Crimea. To ensure freedom of speech and of choice. Curiously, while Yanukovych was in power and Russia maintained influence over the political decisions made in Kyiv, Putin saw no problem with the Crimeans freedom of expression.
Finally, what was the reason given by Putin to justify the invasion of Ukraine? “Denazification.” Intriguingly, the Kremlin gave no justification about the war crimes committed by the Russian troops, the attacks to civilians, and, among other things, the looting and theft of Ukrainian cereals.
Once again, the choice is between defend or compromise our values and principles. Once again, all warnings were ignored. All those, including Henry Kissinger, who say that we must find a way to save Putin’s face are wrong.
We keep neglecting Karaganov’s Doctrine. We keep disregarding Dugin’s concepts. We keep forgetting that Empire is the most enduring idea within all Russians elites, regardless of the epoch. We keep ignoring that Putin’s regime is nothing but a corporativist system. Let me ask you this. Concerning Crimea’s annexation what is more plausible? An act of Russian nationalism or an act of Russian imperialism?
Putin evaluated us in Georgia. Almost nothing was done. Putin annexed Crimea. Again, almost nothing was done. Putin invaded Ukraine. Finally, we are really reacting. But if our position weakens, Putin will do whatever and wherever he wants. Concerning Europe, this is what Putin and his staff desire: Russians want to be in, throw the Americans out and keep the Germans down. Which they will only accomplish with NATO disbanding.
The last thing we should do is save Putin’s face. Neither Putin nor his entourage can be trusted. Obviously, I am not advocating an invasion of Russia to overthrow Putin. That task falls entirely to the Russian people. What is essential to do is to unmask Putin’s lies, to show that he is an autocratic despot and to encourage those who have the courage to stand up to him through democratic procedures.
The latest form of Russian blackmail is the threat of nuclear war. Either they give me what I want, or else. We simply cannot give in. Nothing guarantees us that Putin will stop. In fact, his behavior indicates that what will surely happen are more abuses and demands. If Putin starts a nuclear war, it will not just be our children who will die. Losses will be global.
Circumstances may reveal people’s abilities, but it is choices that bring out character. Both Putin and Zelensky are revealing who they are. So must we. As such, we must be worthy of those who gave their last measure of devotion for us. We must show the same unwavering resolution and do what is right.
That is the only way we will properly honor those who allowed us to be what we are – Churchill, de Gaulle, Roosevelt, Pierlot, Dupong, Adenauer, Monnet, Schuman, Spaak, among many others.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-09-10 | Categories: democracia, opinion, politics, relações internacionais, valores | Tags: democracy, EU, freedom, International law, Putin, Ukraine, UN, War, Zelensky | Leave a comment
Ukraine may be EU’s future
Ukraine’s fall will only encourage Putin to continue down this path. And the consequences will be unpredictable. (article published 16 June 2022 – Observador)
1. The NATO-Russia Council was just over two years old when Boris Yeltsin nominated Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister. After that, gradually, what used to be a forum for consultation, consensus, cooperation, decision-making and joint action for security issues within the Euro-Atlantic region began to fade away. The reasons for detachment were not only due to old Russian suspicions about NATO enlargements. The installation of the NATO missile defense system in Europe also raised significant questions.
In 2007, Putin began to ask for a revision of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) seeking security enhancement. General Yuri Baluyevsky, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, acknowledged that Russia was considering unilaterally withdrawing from the INF Treaty, in response to the deployment of the NATO missile defense system in Europe and because other countries, like China, were not bound by the Treaty. In the same year, Russia suspended and later withdraw from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Shortly thereafter, the Kremlin announced an 8-year investment of US$100 billion in modernizing its military capabilities and developing completely new nuclear missile systems. Today we know that Putin’s motivations were different. Russian actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (2008), as well as Crimea (2014) and the present ignoble interference in Ukraine illustrate this statement.
2. There is, since 1725, in Russia, a document that, apocryphal or not, seems to have influenced its behavior as a State. Not even the 1917 Revolution and the consequent regime change altered the execution of the ideas contained therein: territory and influence. Just remember how the Bolsheviks reacted to the territorial loss imposed by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. I refer the Testament of Peter the Great.
In 2007, I authored an article – Crossroads – where I discussed Russia’s shift to a capitalist system and the resulting growth potential, saying that I would not be surprised if the germ of expansion reappeared. I said that the “heirs” of Peter the Great appeared to be revitalized. At least, as far as his current successor [Putin] was concerned in Russia’s resurgence on the world stage.
However, I missed one point in my analysis. I considered that Putin used the control system characteristic of the political apparatus of the former Soviet Union, but that he abandoned the communist system, merging these factors into the equation of democracy, when what Vladimir Putin was creating was an autocratic corporatist political structure, like the Chinese, under democracy’s guise.
Georgia, Crimea, and the invasion of Ukraine serve to prove Putin’s pattern of behavior. But something earlier happened that cannot be forgotten – Chechnya.
I have already written about Putin’s strange rise to power. As prime minister, and even as interim president, polls showed Putin had low levels of approval. Everything changed with the war in Chechnya. Do you remember what triggered this war? It was the explosion of bombs in apartment blocks in Moscow, attributed to Chechen terrorists. The Russian retaliation, which flattened Grozny (identical to what is happening in several Ukrainian cities) made Putin a popular hero.
Vladimir Putin has just compared himself to Peter the Great. Putin also hinted that without the 21-year war it would not have been possible for the Russian Tsar to found Russia’s new capital, St. Petersburg. built on land that no European country recognized as Russian. After hearing this, I wonder where Putin intends to establish the new Russian capital?
3. Why should we continue to support Ukraine? Because the fall of Ukraine will only serve to keep Putin on this path. He did not stop at Crimea; he will not stop at Donbass. European leaders must avoid pressure on Zelensky that imply territorial concession. As well as providing an incentive for Putin, it could also mean the end of Ukrainian unity around its President. What happens next? What effects will have the fall of Ukraine on the countries of the European Union and on NATO? Who can tell us that the war will not reach the borders of Poland and Germany? Especially if we show weakness. Make no mistake. It is in Ukraine that democracy, freedom, and respect for international law are being fought for.
How can we show more firmness? I know how the dynamics between the European institutions work, namely between the Commission and the European Council. I believe that Ursula Von der Leyen and that Charles Michel tend towards the integration of Ukraine in the EU. I support this measure, but I am concerned about the time such recognition involves.
Exceptional times require extraordinary responses. Therefore, I suggest an Ad Hoc procedure to speed up the process. I am aware of all the implications inherent in this suggestion. I am also aware that all candidate countries for accession must comply with the Acquis Communautaire and that there are other countries with previous requests. However, none of these countries have been invaded, nor are they at war. Furthermore, in the same Ad Hoc procedure, the subsequent conditions for Ukraine to become a fully-fledged Member State would also be expressed.
We must learn from the lessons of life and of history. Both the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have shown us that some decisions need to be reconsidered. We cannot remain dependent on just one country (either as a supplier or as a partner) and that, for example, we urgently need to formulate policies to encourage nearshore and onshore production in a myriad of areas. But what is at stake now is saving lives. It is not about deciding policies. We must reaffirm the Values we uphold. That is why we are deeply touched by the Ukrainians attitude. They are showing us that Democracy and Freedom comes at a cost.
It is undeniable that under Ursula Von der Leyen leadership, European sanctions have reached an unprecedented level. But it is necessary to go further. Vladimir Putin is not to be trusted. Hence, it is necessary to give an unequivocal sign of firmness.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-09-08 | Categories: opinion, politics, portugal | Tags: EU, future, International relations, NATO, Putin, Ukraine | Leave a comment
O Futuro é liberal.
Já o disse anteriormente. Reafirmo-o aqui. Se duvidas existiam, foram completamente dissipadas.
A Iniciativa Liberal, assim como os princípios e ideias por ela representada, não é um projecto político sem substância ou solidez. Também não é uma quimera irrealizável. Antes pelo contrário. Um país mais rico, através do liberalismo, é um horizonte perfeitamente alcançável.
Há uma diferença entre um sonho e uma ilusão.
A prosperidade partilhada sem crescimento económico não é apenas utópica. Também é demagógica.
E Portugal não precisa de mais ilusões.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-09-04 | Categories: liberdade, opinião, política, responsabilidade, valores | Tags: crescimento, futuro, iniciativa liberal, liberalismo, portugal | Leave a comment
A Bioengineered Cornea Shows It Can Improve People’s Sight
Donated human corneas are scarce in places where they’re most needed. A version made from pig collagen could help meet demand.
MORE THAN 12 million people worldwide are blind because of disease or damage to the cornea, the transparent outer layer of the eye. A transplant from a deceased human donor can restore vision, but demand is so high that only about one in 70 patients receive one. The need is greatest in rural or economically developing countries like India or Iran, where there’s a shortage of corneas due to a lack of eye banks with cold storage. Without these special facilities, a fresh donor cornea must be used within five to seven days.
“The number one reason for why it’s difficult to do corneal transplants in these places is because corneas expire before doctors can place them,” says Esen Akpek, a professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University. “It’s very expensive to do eye banking because you need a cold chain.”
As an alternative, researchers in Sweden have developed a bioengineered version made of collagen purified from pig skin that resembles the protein found in a human cornea. Bioengineered corneas could be made more readily available and may also have a longer shelf life than donor tissue. In a small trial, the implant restored or improved sight in 20 patients who were blind or visually impaired from a corneal condition called keratoconus. The results were published today in Nature Biotechnology.
“We think these could be customized and mass-produced, as opposed to donor corneas, which are often not very good quality because they are obtained from deceased patients who are elderly,” says study author Mehrdad Rafat, a senior lecturer of biomedical engineering at Linköping University. (Rafat founded a company called LinkoCare Life Sciences, which manufactured the bioengineered corneas used in the study.) Among other customizations, the size and thickness could be adjusted to accommodate the patient’s eye and the type of condition they have.
To make the implant, researchers isolated collagen molecules from pig skin, separating out all of the other biological components of the tissue. They added bonds between the collagen fibers to strengthen them and wove them into a hydrogel scaffold to mimic a human cornea.
Transplanting a cornea from a human donor requires a surgery to completely remove the recipient’s damaged tissue, and it is performed using expensive surgical equipment not available in many parts of the world. But for the study, the researchers made a small incision in the patients’ eyes and slipped the bioengineered corneas over their existing ones, making it a simpler procedure.
Rafat and his colleagues ran the trial in India and Iran on patients with keratoconus, which causes the normally round cornea to gradually thin and bulge outward into a cone shape. The condition causes vision to become blurry and distorted and can lead to blindness over time. It affects about 2.3 percent of the population in India, or 30 million people, and 4 percent of Iran’s population, or 3.4 million people.
If keratoconus is diagnosed before the cornea becomes severely scarred and irregular, doctors can maintain vision with special contact lenses and a procedure called corneal cross-linking, which uses UV light to strengthen the cornea and reduces the progression of the disease. For the study, the authors selected participants whose condition couldn’t be corrected with custom-fitted lenses due to eye discomfort and pain.
After their transplants, the researchers followed the volunteers for two years. They concluded that the implants were safe to use and restored the thickness and curvature of the recipients’ natural corneas. Before the operation, 14 of the 20 participants were legally blind, and the others were visually impaired. Two years later, three of the participants who had been blind prior to the study had 20/20 vision, thanks to a combination of the bioengineered corneas and the use of contact lenses or glasses. For the others, their vision improved to an average of 20/26 with contacts (in the Indian group) and 20/58 with glasses (in the Iranian group).
Christopher Starr, an ophthalmologist at Weill Cornell Medicine and clinical spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, says that while the study was small, the results are promising. “The postoperative visual gains were quite impressive—as good, if not better, than traditional transplantation techniques,” he says. The participants also needed fewer eye drops and a shorter course of immunosuppressant drugs than is typically needed with transplantation from human donor corneas.
There have been other attempts at cornea implants. Artificial versions made of plastic exist, but they’re used when a patient has had one or more failed donor transplants. Because they’re plastic, these implants don’t integrate into a patient’s own eye like human tissue would, raising the risk of infection. “Biointegration has always been a huge challenge,” Starr says. “Without tight biointegration of a device, there is a much higher risk of bacteria getting into the eye and causing a rare but catastrophic infection called endophthalmitis, which often leads to permanent irreversible blindness.”
Immune system rejection, in which the body attacks the implant as a foreign object, is also a risk with any type of implant. But Starr says there may also be a lower risk of rejection with the bioengineered cornea, compared to human donor tissue, because the implant has been stripped of living cells.
Still, the process of inserting a bioengineered replacement over the original cornea, instead of swapping it out, might have some limitations. Akpek is skeptical that this kind of implant will be able to treat very severe cases of keratoconus, in which the cornea becomes clouded. “By just putting a transparent layer onto the cornea, they are strengthening, thickening, and flattening the cornea, but they’re not treating an opacified cornea, which is the advanced stage of keratoconus,” she says. For the bioengineered implant to work in these patients, she thinks the damaged cornea would also need to be removed—but that requires special training and technology that’s not available everywhere.
And she points out that getting a transplant first requires a diagnosis of corneal disease, which can be difficult in low-income areas where people don’t have access to eye specialists. “This doesn’t solve the problem, which is poverty,” says Akpek. But if a bioengineered version is cheaper and more accessible than using donor corneas, she says, it has a shot at preventing blindness in more people.
Rafat’s company is planning a larger trial of patients with more advanced disease. They also want to test the implant in people with other types of corneal blindness. One unknown is how long the bioengineered corneas will last after they’re transplanted. Donor corneas can last 10 years or more if there are no complications. “Our aim is to have a permanent implant,” Rafat says.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-bioengineered-cornea-shows-it-can-improve-peoples-sight/
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-08-13 | Categories: conhecimento | Tags: ciência, conhecimento, futuro, saber | Leave a comment
Stop Tiptoeing Around Russia
It Is Time to End Washington’s Decades of Deference to Moscow
By Alexander Vindman August 8, 2022
For the last three decades, the United States has bent over backward to acknowledge Russia’s security concerns and allay its anxieties. The United States has done so at the expense of relations with more willing partners in Eastern Europe—Ukraine in particular. Instead of supporting the early stirrings of Ukrainian independence in 1991, for example, Washington sought to preserve the failing Soviet Union out of misplaced fear that it might collapse into civil war. And instead of imposing heavy costs on Russia for its authoritarianism at home and antidemocratic activities abroad, including in Ukraine, Washington has mostly looked the other way in a fruitless effort to deal cooperatively with Moscow.
The justification for this Russia-centric approach to Eastern Europe has fluctuated between hopes for a good relationship with the Kremlin and fears that the bilateral relationship could devolve into another cold war—or worse, a hot one. But the result has been U.S. national security priorities based on unrealistic aspirations instead of actual outcomes, particularly during moments of crisis. Even as evidence mounted that Russia’s belligerent behavior would not allow for a stable or predictable relationship, U.S. policy stayed the course, to the detriment of both U.S. national security interests and the security of Russia’s neighbors.
One would think that Russia’s war in Ukraine would have demanded a shift in U.S. strategic thinking. Instead, whether out of habit, reflex, or even prejudice (thinking of Russians and Ukrainians as “one people” or of Ukrainians as “little Russians”), the primary decision makers in charge of U.S. foreign policy still privilege Russia over Ukraine.
The war has now reached an inflection point. The United States must decide whether it will help Ukraine approach the negotiating table with as much leverage as it can or watch Russia reorganize and resupply its troops, adapt its tactics, and commit to a long-term war of attrition. If Ukrainian democracy is going to prevail, U.S. foreign policymakers must finally prioritize dealing with Ukraine as it is rather than Russia as they would like it to be.
“THE UNGROUP” AND ITS LEGACY
Prioritizing Ukraine will require breaking the long-standing tradition of Russocentrism in trilateral U.S.-Ukrainian-Russian relations. In its contemporary form, that tradition dates back to 1989, when senior members of U.S. President George H. W. Bush’s administration set up a secret group of interagency staff members to plan for the possible dissolution of the Soviet Union. On July 18 of that year, Robert Gates, who was then deputy U.S. national security adviser, sent a memo to Bush titled “Thinking About the Unthinkable: Instability and Political Turbulence in the USSR.” As Gates recalled in his 2007 memoir, From the Shadows, he argued that the United States “should very quietly begin some contingency planning as to possible U.S. responses, actions and policies in the event of leadership or internal policy changes or widespread ethnic violence and repression—and consider the implications for us of such developments.”
Soon thereafter, Gates tasked Condoleezza Rice, then the senior director for Soviet and East European affairs on the National Security Council, with assembling an “ungroup” that would take on this “unthinkable” task. (At the time, official U.S. policy still focused on preserving the Soviet Union and supporting reform efforts, so the ungroup’s name reflected both its seemingly impossible mandate and its Top Secret status.) The team Rice pulled together included trusted officials from the Department of Defense, Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Among them were Dennis Ross, then the director of policy planning at the State Department; Fritz Ermarth, the chair of the National Intelligence Council; Robert Blackwill, the national intelligence officer for the Soviet Union; Paul Wolfowitz, the undersecretary of defense for policy; and Eric Edelman, an assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for Soviet and East European affairs.
Working in secrecy, these officials considered possible scenarios for Soviet collapse and potential U.S. responses. Written evidence of the group’s deliberations—or even its existence—is sparse. (I have mainly relied here on memoirs by people who served as high-level officials in the George H. W. Bush administration, some of which contain details of the ungroup without explicitly naming it, and on interviews with five former officials who were either participants in the group or had direct knowledge of its work.) But the conclusions the ungroup reached are clearly imprinted not just on U.S. foreign policy in the last years of the Soviet Union but also on U.S. priorities in the newly independent Soviet republics. The three greatest threats the United States would face in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the ungroup predicted, would be the proliferation of new nuclear weapons states; “loose nukes,” or the loss, theft, or sale of weapons-grade fissile material, especially to nonstate actors or countries with clandestine nuclear weapons programs; and conflicting loyalties in the Soviet military that might lead to civil war in the newly independent republics or in Russia itself.
U.S. policymakers must deal with Ukraine as it is rather than Russia as they would like it to be.
When the unthinkable became inevitable and the Soviet Union began to crumble, mitigating these threats became the overarching goal of U.S. policy toward the former Soviet bloc. The United States pursued denuclearization in the former Soviet republics and partnership with an ideally strong, centralized Russian government in Moscow. If both goals could be accomplished, so the thinking went, then widespread ethnonationalist conflicts could be averted and command and control of the former Soviet arsenal could be maintained in a stable, whole Russia, thereby reducing the risks of a nuclear catastrophe.
The ungroup didn’t oppose the independence of the Soviet republics, but its fear of worst-case scenarios contributed to missteps and missed opportunities. For instance, it is hard not to hear echoes of the ungroup’s warnings in Bush’s infamous “Chicken Kyiv” speech in the Ukrainian capital on August 1, 1991. Mere weeks before Ukraine’s parliament adopted an act declaring the country’s independence, Bush declined to support the country’s right to self-determination, warning instead of “suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.” In line with the ungroup’s thinking, he privileged a carefully managed Soviet decline over the wishes of Ukrainians, who would go on to overwhelming vote for independence in a referendum at the end of the year.
Bush’s words provoked a visceral response from Ukrainians. For the Ukrainians who still remember the speech, or at least know of it, Bush’s explicit preference for the Soviet Union’s survival and his willingness to openly reject Ukrainian aspirations for statehood and independence were symbolic failures and practical indicators of where Ukraine fell in the hierarchy of U.S. relationships. One might argue that it was reasonable for the Bush administration to prioritize its relationship with the Soviet Union, which was, by any measure, a greater power than any of its potential successor states. It had enormous energy resources, a colossal military-industrial complex, and the ability to create massive headaches for Washington. But managing Soviet and later Russian threats did not have to come at the expense of engagement with the republics. Washington could have pursued both objectives at the same time, adapting to the Soviet Union’s decline while also hedging against future Russian irredentism by supporting self-determination in the emerging post-Soviet states.
Bush’s speech in Kyiv was an ignominious start to the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship.
Instead, Bush’s speech in Kyiv was an ignominious start to the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship that could have easily been avoided. Bush could have stuck to platitudes about the promotion of peace, democracy, and self-determination and omitted the patronizing warning about civil conflict. After all, the United States had little influence over Ukraine’s decision to seek independence or the Soviet Union’s longevity. In the end, neither outcome conformed to U.S. policy preferences.
The Bush administration wasn’t fully united behind this overly cautious approach toward the collapsing Soviet Union; there were dissenters, both inside and outside the ungroup. For instance, as Michael McFaul and James Goldgeier note in Power and Purpose, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney advocated policies that would prevent the reemergence of a Soviet or post-Soviet threat in Eurasia. He thought the United States should seize the opportunity to undermine a great power rival and extend democracy and Western security institutions farther east.
Cheney’s arguments stopped short of predicting a Russian resurgence—something that was difficult to conceive of against the backdrop of immense economic, social, and political problems in Russia—but they foreshadowed key developments in U.S. foreign policy during the post-Soviet years. One episode from Gates’s memoir stands out: On September 5, 1991, a month after Bush’s Chicken Kyiv blunder, Cheney clashed with Secretary of State James Baker over the effects of the Soviet Union’s impending collapse. According to Gates, Cheney argued that the breakup was “in our interest,” adding that “if it is voluntary, some sort of association of the republics will happen. If democracy fails, we’re better off if the remaining pieces of the USSR are small.” Baker’s response was indicative of the more dominant strain of thinking within the ungroup: “Peaceful breakup is in our interest, not another Yugoslavia.”
According to the former officials I interviewed, those more in line with Cheney’s thinking, including Wolfowitz and Edelman, came to view post-Soviet European security as a zero-sum game with an enfeebled but still dangerous geopolitical rival in Moscow. They also saw a newly independent, vulnerable Ukraine in need of assistance and recognized that, if strengthened, it could serve as a bulwark against Russian revanchism. But these were minority views. Most influential players in the national security establishment agreed with Baker that U.S.-Russian relations had to form the bedrock of any post–Cold War security structure. They believed that if they could get Russia right, the country would become a bastion of stability in the region and even contribute to positive outcomes in Ukraine and elsewhere.
BLINDED BY THE MIGHT
This fixation on dealing with Moscow has proved remarkably durable. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all built their regional policies around their hopes and fears for Russia—hopes for a cooperative relationship and fears of another cold war. Now, President Joe Biden’s administration has come full circle with a risk assessment of Russia’s war in Ukraine that could have been drawn up by the ungroup, one that is more focused on the internal Russian consequences of the conflict than on the consequences for Ukraine itself. The Soviet Union is long gone, but concerns about instability, Russia’s nuclear arsenal, regional conflict, and bilateral confrontation remain. To avoid provoking Moscow, the United States has implicitly acknowledged Russia’s influence in an imagined post-Soviet geopolitical space in Ukraine. It has also often filtered its decisions about Ukraine policy through the prism of Russia, balancing its objectives in Ukraine against its need for Russia’s cooperation on arms control, North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation, climate change, the Arctic, and space programs, among other things.
By comparison, the United States has been largely ambivalent toward Ukraine. It has engaged with the country when the two countries’ interests and values aligned. For instance, during the Clinton era, the United States made a clear push for democratization and denuclearization. But once denuclearization was attained and democratization had stagnated under Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, the impetus for bilateral engagement declined. During Clinton’s second term and during the Bush and Obama administrations, the United States shifted away from Kyiv and toward collaboration with Moscow.
Misguided hope for a strategic partnership with a reformed Russia—or at the very least, a stable and predictable relationship with Moscow—seemed to outweigh much more achievable U.S. interests and investments in Ukraine in these years. The United States bought into the myth of Russian exceptionalism and deluded itself with distorted visions of the bilateral relationship, largely ignoring the signs of authoritarian consolidation within Russia and failing to heed the warnings from partners in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Even worse, because of its desire to accommodate Russia, the United States dismissed democratic progress in Ukraine—for instance, in the aftermath of pro-democratic movements in 2004–5 and 2013–14—and undermined prospects for a more fruitful long-term relationship with Kyiv. U.S. policymakers justified this approach on the grounds that drawing Russia in as a responsible member of the international community would enable democratization in the region. Later, when Russia’s lurch toward authoritarianism became undeniable, they justified it on the basis of stability, succumbing to fears of a return to Cold War–era tensions.
The United States was not necessarily wrong to pursue a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia. Where it erred was in continuing to pursue this objective long after there was no realistic chance of success, which should have been obvious by 2004, when Russia interfered in Ukraine’s elections on behalf of its preferred candidate, or at the very latest by 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia. Instead of looking for more cooperative partners, however, U.S. policymakers continued their futile courtship of Kremlin leadership. As a result, they passed up opportunities to invest in the U.S. relationship with Ukraine, which was always a more promising engine of democratization in the region.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
For most of the last 30 years, Kyiv has been a more willing U.S. partner than Moscow. But Washington chose not to see this. Had it been more receptive to Ukrainian overtures and sensitive to Ukrainian concerns, the United States might have offered something more than vague “security assurances” in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which accompanied Ukraine’s fateful decision to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead, the agreement—signed by Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States—required only consultations and a commitment to seek UN Security Council action in the event of violations (an obvious flaw, considering Russia’s veto power in that institution).
Other early attempts at bilateral cooperation came only at Ukraine’s insistence. In 1996, for instance, Kuchma requested the establishment of a special binational commission, named for him and U.S. Vice President Al Gore, to increase cooperation on trade, economic development, and security issues, among other things, as part of a closer strategic partnership. Although the Gore-Kuchma Commission was modeled after a similar U.S.-Russian commission, the dialogue it spawned never produced a real strategic partnership. Engagement with Russia was a major U.S. priority; engagement with Kyiv was an afterthought. After all, outcomes in Ukraine were still viewed as dependent upon outcomes in Russia.
The 2004–5 Orange Revolution offered another opportunity for cooperation. After thousands of Ukrainian demonstrators took to the streets to protest a fraudulent presidential runoff election, paving the way for a free and fair vote two months later, the United States could have provided greater financial and technical assistance to Ukrainian reform efforts and nurtured Ukrainian ambitions for European and transatlantic integration. A stronger partnership might have prevented the political infighting and failed reforms that eventually fueled popular disappointment with the pro-European government of President Viktor Yushchenko.
For most of the last 30 years, Kyiv has been a more willing U.S. partner than Moscow.
Instead, the United States opted for a policy no man’s land. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration pushed for the alliance to welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. But the United States and other NATO members declined to spell out what Ukraine would need to do to accede, and they refused to draw up a membership action plan. The resulting declaration produced the worst possible balance of provocation and assurance, giving Russia a new grievance to exploit but making Ukraine no more secure.
These failures had painful consequences for Ukraine. If Yushchenko’s reforms had generally succeeded, Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian candidate who was defeated after the Orange Revolution, might not have won the 2010 presidential election. Without a Yanukovych presidency, the Ukrainian government and armed forces might not have atrophied, and a rapacious kleptocracy might not have taken hold. The 2013–14 Revolution of Dignity, also known as the Euromaidan Revolution, might not have become necessary and Ukraine might not have become vulnerable to Russian aggression and Western ambivalence. The costs of Russia’s 2014 incursion into eastern Ukraine would have been significantly higher if the Ukrainian government and military had been intact and developing. Moreover, Russia would have had to contend with a stronger Western reaction and international opprobrium had the United States and the other signatories of the Budapest Memorandum demonstrated a stronger long-term commitment to Ukrainian democracy, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
Even if none of this had happened, the West could have responded more forcefully to Russia’s 2014 invasion. A tougher reaction might have deterred further Russian aggression or at least better prepared Ukraine for a larger conflict. The United States and its allies helped modernize Ukraine’s military, but because they did not want to provoke Moscow, they declined to impose stiff-enough sanctions on Russia or provide heavy equipment or extensive training to Ukrainian troops. Russian President Vladimir Putin escalated anyway. Now, the West is scrambling to make up for lost time.
The United States doesn’t deserve all the blame for these missed opportunities. Rampant corruption, political infighting, and abysmal leadership hamstrung Ukraine’s efforts at reform and development for years before the Orange Revolution. And it wasn’t until the 2013–14 revolution that Ukraine truly pivoted toward reform, transparency, democracy, and European integration. But even in the moments when Ukraine was a willing and able partner, the United States was reluctant to cooperate or upgrade U.S.-Ukrainian relations. Apprehension about the political response from Moscow always precluded a closer relationship with Kyiv.
The United States opted for a policy no man’s land toward Ukraine.
This historical failure has become more evident as former U.S. government officials have been forced to defend their records on U.S. policy toward Ukraine. There are very few who can honestly say they did all they could in the eight years since Russia’s first invasion to aid Ukraine’s reform efforts, hasten the country’s integration with Europe, harden its defenses, and bolster deterrence. Whether that is because of willful ignorance or an institutional predilection for coddling Russia, there is no excuse for neglecting Ukraine.
Part of the problem may be a decades-long hangover from the Cold War during which the expertise, education, and training of Eurasia specialists in the national security establishment have atrophied. Moreover, virtually all the experts who have worked for the U.S. government over the last 30 years were trained Sovietologists, not Ukrainianists. As a result, they were ill prepared to recognize and understand Ukraine as a fully distinct cultural, ethnolinguistic, historical, and political entity. Rather, these Sovietologists, and the Russianists and Kremlinologists who filled their shoes, saw Russia’s “near abroad” as always having been in Moscow’s orbit. The physical borders of a newly independent Ukraine might have been clearly demarcated, but the mental boundaries of Ukraine’s geopolitics were still fettered to the imperial center in Moscow.
To make matters worse, area studies also declined after the collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to a dearth of funding for the languages and specialized knowledge needed to develop regional expertise. Those Soviet studies programs that survived were rebranded as Russian and Eastern European studies, Russian and Eurasian studies, or some other variant of this formulation, suggesting an equally privileged position for Russia relative to the rest of Eurasia.
With a few exceptions (most notably, Harvard University’s Ukrainian Research Institute), most U.S. universities train their students in the Russian language, with a focus on Russian history, culture, and literature. Although the Slavic academic community has begun to reevaluate Russocentric approaches to the study of Eurasia, this shift has not yet been felt within the U.S. government. Russian and Eastern European expertise—or what little of it exists in government—has been treated as a proxy for knowledge of Ukraine. In the time I spent on the National Security Council, from 2018 to 2020, the results of this cumulative bias in national security education became obvious. Very few officials had specialized knowledge of the region, let alone of Ukraine, and among those, even fewer had Ukrainian language skills.
UNGROUP THINK ENDURES
The bias against Ukraine and toward Russia continues to this day. The Biden administration seems unable to accept that as long as Putin is in power, the best the United States can hope for is a cold war with Russia. In the meantime, Washington should be making every effort to prevent the conflict in Ukraine from turning into a long war of attrition that will only increase the risks of regional spillover as time passes. That means supporting Ukraine in full and giving it the equipment it needs to force Russia to sue for peace, not quivering in fear every time Putin or one of his mouthpieces says something about Moscow’s nuclear arsenal. The United States is a superpower. Russia is not. The Biden administration should act as if it knows the difference and deploy its vast resources so that Ukrainians can dictate the outcome in Ukraine.
But old habits die hard. According to two former senior U.S. officials who worked on Ukraine policy, including one who served in the Biden administration, the senior leadership of the National Security Council has acted as a spiritual successor to the ungroup. NSC officials have sought to limit military support for Ukraine based on a familiar logic—that it might escalate tensions with Moscow and upset remaining hopes of normalizing relations with the Kremlin. Even as Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin have pledged to give Ukraine all the support it needs to win the war, NSC officials blocked the transfer of Soviet-era jets to Ukraine, declined to provide Ukraine with sufficient long-range air defenses to clear the skies of Russian planes, withheld the quantities of long-range rocket systems and munitions needed to destroy Russian targets within the theater of war, and halted discussion on the transfer of manned and unmanned aircraft required to neutralize Russian long-range attacks on Ukraine’s cities.
According to former officials, the NSC leadership believes that the war will pose significantly greater risks to the United States and global stability if Ukraine “wins too much.” They wish to avoid the collapse of Putin’s regime for fear of the same threats the ungroup identified three decades ago: nuclear proliferation, loose nukes, and civil war. And they have sought to reduce the likelihood of a bilateral confrontation between the United States and Russia, even at the risk of greatly overstating the probability of conventional and nuclear war. “While a key goal of the United States is to do the needful to support and defend Ukraine, another key goal is to ensure that we do not end up in a circumstance where we’re heading down the road towards a third world war,” said Jake Sullivan, who heads the NSC as Biden’s national security adviser, at the Aspen Security Forum last month. In this excessive concern over how Russia might react to U.S. policies, one can see the shadow of the ungroup.
The senior leadership of the NSC has acted as a spiritual successor to the ungroup.
Planning for every contingency is a responsible way to manage national security threats, but lowest-probability worst-case scenarios should not dictate U.S. actions. By looking for off-ramps and face-saving measures, the ungroup’s successors are perpetuating indecision at the highest levels of the Biden administration. Time that is wasted worrying about unlikely Russian responses to U.S. actions would be better spent backfilling allies’ weaponry, training Ukrainians on Western capabilities, and expediting more arms transfers to Ukraine.
The United States is slowly coming around to providing some of the right capabilities, but not in the necessary quantities and not before U.S. torpor degraded Ukraine’s ability to hold and reclaim territory in southern Ukraine and the Donbas. After months of deliberation, the Biden administration finally agreed to transfer high-mobility artillery rocket systems known as HIMARS, but it has refused to provide the longest range munitions needed to hit Russia’s long-range strike capabilities and military stockpiles. It remains unclear whether the administration will eventually send the munitions that can travel 190 miles, a significant improvement over the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System munitions it is currently providing, which can travel only about 45 miles. The United States has also shied away from providing Ukraine with medium- and long-range surface-to-air missiles that could target Russian aircraft, missiles, and in the worst-case scenario, delivery systems for any possible tactical nuclear weapons. Ukraine could force Russia to the negotiating table faster if it had such capabilities. And providing sufficient weapons wouldn’t significantly undermine resourcing worst-case-scenario war plans against Russia. The U.S. government can do both.
The Biden administration has rightfully, if belatedly, begun to speak about a policy of Ukrainian victory on the battlefield, but it still has yet to match this rhetoric with the requisite military support. Thus far, the Biden administration has transferred a modest $8 billion in weapons to Ukraine. Additional security assistance has been blocked or delayed by the NSC or bogged down in the bureaucracy of the Department of Defense. Congress has passed a Lend-Lease Act for Ukraine, reviving a World War II–era program that gives the president enhanced authority to lend or lease large quantities of defense hardware to Ukraine. The Biden administration should be making greater use of this authority. It should also be leading the effort to establish logistical and sustainment centers within Ukraine, not hundreds of kilometers away in Poland and Romania but as close as possible to the eastern and southern battlefields. If Ukraine wins this war, it will be thanks not just to weapons and will but to staying power.
The United States should also do more to resolve the issue of grain exports. Russia’s blockade of Ukraine has disrupted global food-supply chains and prompted a growing list of countries to impose grain export bans. This problem will only intensify as Russian forces continue targeting grain storage facilities and transport networks and loot Ukrainian harvests in occupied territories. Providing escorts for Ukrainian merchant vessels and opening a humanitarian shipping corridor is one potential solution, albeit a risky one. More likely, grain shipments will continue to be transported slowly and inefficiently by rail, barge, and truck to countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, and Bulgaria. Ukraine uses a wider rail gauge than its EU neighbors, and while rail capacity is up, the current speed and volume of rail transports is insufficient to remove the existing export backlog.
Transportation costs as well as the availability of trucks, barges, and suitable rail cars is another problem. The European Union has rolled out a plan for “solidarity lanes”—alternative logistics routes for Ukrainian agricultural exports through the EU to third countries—but this ad hoc emergency response is emblematic of the West’s failure to plan for long-term contingencies. In the two months since these lanes have been established, they have failed to clear shipping bottlenecks and left agricultural produce stranded short of its destination. On July 22, Russia agreed to allow grain exports to proceed. But just one day later, Russian missiles struck Ukraine’s largest seaport and cast the deal into doubt. Depending on when one starts counting—the 2014 seizure of Crimea or the February invasion—the United States and the EU have had either five months or eight years to plan for major export disruptions of this sort, so it is disappointing that they have had to scramble to piece together a patchwork solution to a predictable problem.
Again, however, this lack of preparation is more understandable when viewed through the West’s Russocentric lens. Planning for major disruptions in agricultural exports made little sense as long as a wider war was inconceivable. And even in the event of a war, the overriding Western assumption was that Russia could conquer Ukraine or force Kyiv to capitulate in short order; business would find a way to continue with only minimal disruption. The same faulty logic explains how Europe allowed itself to become dependent on Russian oil and gas—and how it has struggled to wean itself off these resources even after the danger they pose has been revealed. The United States and the EU must learn from these failures and interrogate the assumptions that blind them to potential threats, no matter how far-fetched those threats may seem in peacetime.
A FOOTHOLD FOR DEMOCRACY
The Biden administration has made democratic renewal a cornerstone of its domestic and foreign policy agendas. There is no better way to demonstrate democratic resolve than by defending U.S. values and interests in Ukraine. A Ukrainian victory would not only limit Russia’s capacity for future military aggression but also cement democracy’s foothold in Eastern Europe, offering a powerful lesson to would-be authoritarian aggressors and democratic nations alike. A Ukrainian loss, by contrast, would signal an acceleration of the wave of authoritarianism and democratic decline that has washed over the globe in the last decade.
To ensure the triumph of democracy in Ukraine, the United States must first change its thinking patterns and learn from decades of mistakes. Recognizing the poisonous Russocentrism of U.S. foreign policy is the first step toward a better approach to U.S.-Ukrainian relations. As Russia’s war effort falters and the prospect of a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia begins to look unthinkable once again, it will be tempting to revert to old ways of thinking and plan for normalized relations with a post-Putin Russia. But such an outcome would once again risk privileging Russia over Ukraine. Even if Putin is deposed or replaced through some other means, the United States should not assume Russia can change for the better; rapprochement must be earned, not given. By freeing itself from its Russocentrism, Washington will also be better able to engage with and listen to its partners in Eastern and northern Europe, which have greater proximity to and more clarity on national security threats from Russia. Their knowledge and expertise will be critical to Ukraine’s victory over Russia, future Ukrainian reconstruction, the prosecution of war crimes, prosperity in Eastern Europe, and eventually, the establishment of thriving democracies across Eurasia.
Beneath the United States’ misplaced aspirations for a positive relationship with Russia lies immense hubris. Americans tend to believe they can accomplish anything, but perpetually discount the agency of their interlocutors. In truth, the United States never had the influence to unilaterally change Russia’s internal politics. But it did have the ability to nurture a more promising outcome with a more willing partner in Ukraine. Unless the United States fundamentally reorients its foreign policy, away from aspirations and toward outcomes, it will miss an even bigger opportunity to bring about a peaceful, democratic Eastern Europe.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-08-11 | Categories: opinion, politics, relações internacionais | Tags: democracy, Foreign Affairs, NATO, responsability, Ukraine, values | Leave a comment
Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals
By Susan B. Glasser and Peter Baker
August 8, 2022
In the summer of 2017, after just half a year in the White House, Donald Trump flew to Paris for Bastille Day celebrations thrown by Emmanuel Macron, the new French President. Macron staged a spectacular martial display to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the American entrance into the First World War. Vintage tanks rolled down the Champs-Élysées as fighter jets roared overhead. The event seemed to be calculated to appeal to Trump—his sense of showmanship and grandiosity—and he was visibly delighted. The French general in charge of the parade turned to one of his American counterparts and said, “You are going to be doing this next year.”
Sure enough, Trump returned to Washington determined to have his generals throw him the biggest, grandest military parade ever for the Fourth of July. The generals, to his bewilderment, reacted with disgust. “I’d rather swallow acid,” his Defense Secretary, James Mattis, said. Struggling to dissuade Trump, officials pointed out that the parade would cost millions of dollars and tear up the streets of the capital.
But the gulf between Trump and the generals was not really about money or practicalities, just as their endless policy battles were not only about clashing views on whether to withdraw from Afghanistan or how to combat the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran. The divide was also a matter of values, of how they viewed the United States itself. That was never clearer than when Trump told his new chief of staff, John Kelly—like Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general—about his vision for Independence Day. “Look, I don’t want any wounded guys in the parade,” Trump said. “This doesn’t look good for me.” He explained with distaste that at the Bastille Day parade there had been several formations of injured veterans, including wheelchair-bound soldiers who had lost limbs in battle.
Kelly could not believe what he was hearing. “Those are the heroes,” he told Trump. “In our society, there’s only one group of people who are more heroic than they are—and they are buried over in Arlington.” Kelly did not mention that his own son Robert, a lieutenant killed in action in Afghanistan, was among the dead interred there.
“I don’t want them,” Trump repeated. “It doesn’t look good for me.”
The subject came up again during an Oval Office briefing that included Trump, Kelly, and Paul Selva, an Air Force general and the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Kelly joked in his deadpan way about the parade. “Well, you know, General Selva is going to be in charge of organizing the Fourth of July parade,” he told the President. Trump did not understand that Kelly was being sarcastic. “So, what do you think of the parade?” Trump asked Selva. Instead of telling Trump what he wanted to hear, Selva was forthright.
“I didn’t grow up in the United States, I actually grew up in Portugal,” Selva said. “Portugal was a dictatorship—and parades were about showing the people who had the guns. And in this country, we don’t do that.” He added, “It’s not who we are.”
Even after this impassioned speech, Trump still did not get it. “So, you don’t like the idea?” he said, incredulous.
“No,” Selva said. “It’s what dictators do.”
The four years of the Trump Presidency were characterized by a fantastical degree of instability: fits of rage, late-night Twitter storms, abrupt dismissals. At first, Trump, who had dodged the draft by claiming to have bone spurs, seemed enamored with being Commander-in-Chief and with the national-security officials he’d either appointed or inherited. But Trump’s love affair with “my generals” was brief, and in a statement for this article the former President confirmed how much he had soured on them over time. “These were very untalented people and once I realized it, I did not rely on them, I relied on the real generals and admirals within the system,” he said.
It turned out that the generals had rules, standards, and expertise, not blind loyalty. The President’s loud complaint to John Kelly one day was typical: “You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”
“Which generals?” Kelly asked.
“The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.
“You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.
But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied. In his version of history, the generals of the Third Reich had been completely subservient to Hitler; this was the model he wanted for his military. Kelly told Trump that there were no such American generals, but the President was determined to test the proposition.
By late 2018, Trump wanted his own handpicked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He had tired of Joseph Dunford, a Marine general who had been appointed chairman by Barack Obama, and who worked closely with Mattis as they resisted some of Trump’s more outlandish ideas. Never mind that Dunford still had most of a year to go in his term. For months, David Urban, a lobbyist who ran the winning 2016 Trump campaign in Pennsylvania, had been urging the President and his inner circle to replace Dunford with a more like-minded chairman, someone less aligned with Mattis, who had commanded both Dunford and Kelly in the Marines.
Mattis’s candidate to succeed Dunford was David Goldfein, an Air Force general and a former F-16 fighter pilot who had been shot down in the Balkans and successfully evaded capture. No one could remember a President selecting a chairman over the objections of his Defense Secretary, but word came back to the Pentagon that there was no way Trump would accept just one recommendation. Two obvious contenders from the Army, however, declined to be considered: General Curtis Scaparrotti, the nato Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, told fellow-officers that there was “no gas left in my tank” to deal with being Trump’s chairman. General Joseph Votel, the Central Command chief, also begged off, telling a colleague he was not a good fit to work so closely with Mattis.
Urban, who had attended West Point with Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and remained an Army man at heart, backed Mark Milley, the chief of staff of the Army. Milley, who was then sixty, was the son of a Navy corpsman who had served with the 4th Marine Division, in Iwo Jima. He grew up outside Boston and played hockey at Princeton. As an Army officer, Milley commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, led the 10th Mountain Division, and oversaw the Army Forces Command. A student of history who often carried a pile of the latest books on the Second World War with him, Milley was decidedly not a member of the close-knit Marine fraternity that had dominated national-security policy for Trump’s first two years. Urban told the President that he would connect better with Milley, who was loquacious and blunt to the point of being rude, and who had the Ivy League pedigree that always impressed Trump.
Milley had already demonstrated those qualities in meetings with Trump as the Army chief of staff. “Milley would go right at why it’s important for the President to know this about the Army and why the Army is the service that wins all the nation’s wars. He had all those sort of elevator-speech punch lines,” a senior defense official recalled. “He would have that big bellowing voice and be right in his face with all the one-liners, and then he would take a breath and he would say, ‘Mr. President, our Army is here to serve you. Because you’re the Commander-in-Chief.’ It was a very different approach, and Trump liked that.” And, like Trump, Milley was not a subscriber to the legend of Mad Dog Mattis, whom he considered a “complete control freak.”
Mattis, for his part, seemed to believe that Milley was inappropriately campaigning for the job, and Milley recalled to others that Mattis confronted him at a reception that fall, saying, “Hey, you shouldn’t run for office. You shouldn’t run to be the chairman.” Milley later told people that he had replied sharply to Mattis, “I’m not lobbying for any fucking thing. I don’t do that.” Milley eventually raised the issue with Dunford. “Hey, Mattis has got this in his head,” Milley told him. “I’m telling you it ain’t me.” Milley even claimed that he had begged Urban to cease promoting his candidacy.
In November, 2018, the day before Milley was scheduled for an interview with Trump, he and Mattis had another barbed encounter at the Pentagon. In Milley’s recounting of the episode later to others, Mattis urged him to tell Trump that he wanted to be the next Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, rather than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Milley said he would not do that but would instead wait to hear what the President wanted him to do. This would end whatever relationship the two generals had.
When Milley arrived at the White House the next day, he was received by Kelly, who seemed to him unusually distraught. Before they headed into the Oval Office to meet with Trump, Milley asked Kelly what he thought.
“You should go to Europe and just get the fuck out of D.C.,” Kelly said. The White House was a cesspool: “Just get as far away as you can.”
In the Oval Office, Trump said right from the start that he was considering Milley for chairman of the Joint Chiefs. When Trump offered him the job, Milley replied, “Mr. President, I’ll do whatever you ask me to do.”
For the next hour, they talked about the state of the world. Immediately, there were points of profound disagreement. On Afghanistan, Milley said he believed that a complete withdrawal of American troops, as Trump wanted, would cause a serious new set of problems. And Milley had already spoken out publicly against the banning of transgender troops, which Trump was insisting on.
“Mattis tells me you are weak on transgender,” Trump said.
“No, I am not weak on transgender,” Milley replied. “I just don’t care who sleeps with who.”
There were other differences as well, but in the end Milley assured him, “Mr. President, you’re going to be making the decisions. All I can guarantee from me is I’m going to give you an honest answer, and I’m not going to talk about it on the front page of the Washington Post. I’ll give you an honest answer on everything I can. And you’re going to make the decisions, and as long as they’re legal I’ll support it.”
As long as they’re legal. It was not clear how much that caveat even registered with Trump. The decision to name Milley was a rare chance, as Trump saw it, to get back at Mattis. Trump would confirm this years later, after falling out with both men, saying that he had picked Milley only because Mattis “could not stand him, had no respect for him, and would not recommend him.”
Late on the evening of December 7th, Trump announced that he would reveal a big personnel decision having to do with the Joint Chiefs the next day, in Philadelphia, at the hundred-and-nineteenth annual Army-Navy football game. This was all the notice Dunford had that he was about to be publicly humiliated. The next morning, Dunford was standing with Milley at the game waiting for the President to arrive when Urban, the lobbyist, showed up. Urban hugged Milley. “We did it!” Urban said. “We did it!”
But Milley’s appointment was not even the day’s biggest news. As Trump walked to his helicopter to fly to the game, he dropped another surprise. “John Kelly will be leaving toward the end of the year,” he told reporters. Kelly had lasted seventeen months in what he called “the worst fucking job in the world.”
For Trump, the decision was a turning point. Instead of installing another strong-willed White House chief of staff who might have told him no, the President gravitated toward one who would basically go along with whatever he wanted. A week later, Kelly made an unsuccessful last-ditch effort to persuade Trump not to replace him with Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina who was serving as Trump’s budget director. “You don’t want to hire someone who’s going to be a yes-man,” Kelly told the President. “I don’t give a shit anymore,” Trump replied. “I want a yes-man!”
A little more than a week after that, Mattis was out, too, having quit in protest over Trump’s order that the U.S. abruptly withdraw its forces from Syria right after Mattis had met with American allies fighting alongside the U.S. It was the first time in nearly four decades that a major Cabinet secretary had resigned over a national-security dispute with the President.
The so-called “axis of adults” was over. None of them had done nearly as much to restrain Trump as the President’s critics thought they should have. But all of them—Kelly, Mattis, Dunford, plus H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser, and Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State—had served as guardrails in one way or another. Trump hoped to replace them with more malleable figures. As Mattis would put it, Trump was so out of his depth that he had decided to drain the pool.
On January 2, 2019, Kelly sent a farewell e-mail to the White House staff. He said that these were the people he would miss: “The selfless ones, who work for the American people so hard and never lowered themselves to wrestle in the mud with the pigs. The ones who stayed above the drama, put personal ambition and politics aside, and simply worked for our great country. The ones who were ethical, moral and always told their boss what he or she NEEDED to hear, as opposed to what they might have wanted to hear.”
That same morning, Mulvaney showed up at the White House for his first official day as acting chief of staff. He called an all-hands meeting and made an announcement: O.K., we’re going to do things differently. John Kelly’s gone, and we’re going to let the President be the President.
In the fall of 2019, nearly a year after Trump named him the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Milley finally took over the position from Dunford. Two weeks into the job, Milley sat at Trump’s side in a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders to discuss a brewing crisis in the Middle East. Trump had again ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, imperilling America’s Kurdish allies and effectively handing control of the territory over to the Syrian government and Russian military forces. The House—amid impeachment proceedings against the President for holding up nearly four hundred million dollars in security assistance to Ukraine as leverage to demand an investigation of his Democratic opponent—passed a nonbinding resolution rebuking Trump for the pullout. Even two-thirds of the House Republicans voted for it.
At the meeting, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, pointed out the vote against the President. “Congratulations,” Trump snapped sarcastically. He grew even angrier when the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, read out a warning from Mattis that leaving Syria could result in the resurgence of the Islamic State. In response, Trump derided his former Defense Secretary as “the world’s most overrated general. You know why I fired him? I fired him because he wasn’t tough enough.”
Eventually, Pelosi, in her frustration, stood and pointed at the President. “All roads with you lead to Putin,” she said. “You gave Russia Ukraine and Syria.”
“You’re just a politician, a third-rate politician!” Trump shot back.
Finally, Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader and Pelosi’s No. 2, had had enough. “This is not useful,” he said, and stood up to leave with the Speaker.
“We’ll see you at the polls,” Trump shouted as they walked out.
When she exited the White House, Pelosi told reporters that she left because Trump was having a “meltdown.” A few hours later, Trump tweeted a White House photograph of Pelosi standing over him, apparently thinking it would prove that she was the one having a meltdown. Instead, the image went viral as an example of Pelosi confronting Trump.
Milley could also be seen in the photograph, his hands clenched together, his head bowed low, looking as though he wanted to sink into the floor. To Pelosi, this was a sign of inexplicable weakness, and she would later say that she never understood why Milley had not been willing to stand up to Trump at that meeting. After all, she would point out, he was the nonpartisan leader of the military, not one of Trump’s toadies. “Milley, you would have thought, would have had more independence,” she told us, “but he just had his head down.”
In fact, Milley was already quite wary of Trump. That night, he called Representative Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who had also been present. “Is that the way these things normally go?” Milley asked. As Smith later put it, “That was the moment when Milley realized that the boss might have a screw or two loose.” There had been no honeymoon. “From pretty much his first day on the job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” Smith said, “he was very much aware of the fact that there was a challenge here that was not your normal challenge with a Commander-in-Chief.”
Early on the evening of June 1, 2020, Milley failed what he came to realize was the biggest test of his career: a short walk from the White House across Lafayette Square, minutes after it had been violently cleared of Black Lives Matter protesters. Dressed in combat fatigues, Milley marched behind Trump with a phalanx of the President’s advisers in a photo op, the most infamous of the Trump Presidency, that was meant to project a forceful response to the protests that had raged outside the White House and across the country since the killing, the week before, of George Floyd. Most of the demonstrations had been peaceful, but there were also eruptions of looting, street violence, and arson, including a small fire in St. John’s Church, across from the White House.
In the morning before the Lafayette Square photo op, Trump had clashed with Milley, Attorney General William Barr, and the Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, over his demands for a militarized show of force. “We look weak,” Trump told them. The President wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and use active-duty military to quell the protests. He wanted ten thousand troops in the streets and the 82nd Airborne called up. He demanded that Milley take personal charge. When Milley and the others resisted and said that the National Guard would be sufficient, Trump shouted, “You are all losers! You are all fucking losers!” Turning to Milley, Trump said, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?”
Eventually, Trump was persuaded not to send in the military against American citizens. Barr, as the civilian head of law enforcement, was given the lead role in the protest response, and the National Guard was deployed to assist police. Hours later, Milley, Esper, and other officials were abruptly summoned back to the White House and sent marching across Lafayette Square. As they walked, with the scent of tear gas still in the air, Milley realized that he should not be there and made his exit, quietly peeling off to his waiting black Chevy Suburban. But the damage was done. No one would care or even remember that he was not present when Trump held up a Bible in front of the damaged church; people had already seen him striding with the President on live television in his battle dress, an image that seemed to signal that the United States under Trump was, finally, a nation at war with itself. Milley knew this was a misjudgment that would haunt him forever, a “road-to-Damascus moment,” as he would later put it. What would he do about it?
In the days after the Lafayette Square incident, Milley sat in his office at the Pentagon, writing and rewriting drafts of a letter of resignation. There were short versions of the letter; there were long versions. His preferred version was the one that read in its entirety:
I regret to inform you that I intend to resign as your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Thank you for the honor of appointing me as senior ranking officer. The events of the last couple weeks have caused me to do deep soul-searching, and I can no longer faithfully support and execute your orders as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is my belief that you were doing great and irreparable harm to my country. I believe that you have made a concerted effort over time to politicize the United States military. I thought that I could change that. I’ve come to the realization that I cannot, and I need to step aside and let someone else try to do that.
Second, you are using the military to create fear in the minds of the people—and we are trying to protect the American people. I cannot stand idly by and participate in that attack, verbally or otherwise, on the American people. The American people trust their military and they trust us to protect them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and our military will do just that. We will not turn our back on the American people.
Third, I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and embodied within that Constitution is the idea that says that all men and women are created equal. All men and women are created equal, no matter who you are, whether you are white or Black, Asian, Indian, no matter the color of your skin, no matter if you’re gay, straight or something in between. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, or choose not to believe. None of that matters. It doesn’t matter what country you came from, what your last name is—what matters is we’re Americans. We’re all Americans. That under these colors of red, white, and blue—the colors that my parents fought for in World War II—means something around the world. It’s obvious to me that you don’t think of those colors the same way I do. It’s obvious to me that you don’t hold those values dear and the cause that I serve.
And lastly it is my deeply held belief that you’re ruining the international order, and causing significant damage to our country overseas, that was fought for so hard by the Greatest Generation that they instituted in 1945. Between 1914 and 1945, 150 million people were slaughtered in the conduct of war. They were slaughtered because of tyrannies and dictatorships. That generation, like every generation, has fought against that, has fought against fascism, has fought against Nazism, has fought against extremism. It’s now obvious to me that you don’t understand that world order. You don’t understand what the war was all about. In fact, you subscribe to many of the principles that we fought against. And I cannot be a party to that. It is with deep regret that I hereby submit my letter of resignation.
The letter was dated June 8th, a full week after Lafayette Square, but Milley still was not sure if he should give it to Trump. He was sending up flares, seeking advice from a wide circle. He reached out to Dunford, and to mentors such as the retired Army general James Dubik, an expert on military ethics. He called political contacts as well, including members of Congress and former officials from the Bush and Obama Administrations. Most told him what Robert Gates, a former Secretary of Defense and C.I.A. chief, did: “Make them fire you. Don’t resign.”
“My sense is Mark had a pretty accurate measure of the man pretty quickly,” Gates recalled later. “He would tell me over time, well before June 1st, some of the absolutely crazy notions that were put forward in the Oval Office, crazy ideas from the President, things about using or not using military force, the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, pulling out of South Korea. It just went on and on.”
Milley was not the only senior official to seek Gates’s counsel. Several members of Trump’s national-security team had made the pilgrimage out to his home in Washington State during the previous two years. Gates would pour them a drink, grill them some salmon, and help them wrestle with the latest Trump conundrum. “The problem with resignation is you can only fire that gun once,” he told them. All the conversations were variations on a theme: “ ‘How do I walk us back from the ledge?’ ‘How do I keep this from happening, because it would be a terrible thing for the country?’ ”
After Lafayette Square, Gates told both Milley and Esper that, given Trump’s increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior, they needed to stay in the Pentagon as long as they could. “If you resign, it’s a one-day story,” Gates told them. “If you’re fired, it makes it clear you were standing up for the right thing.” Gates advised Milley that he had another important card and urged him to play it: “Keep the chiefs on board with you and make it clear to the White House that if you go they all go, so that the White House knows this isn’t just about firing Mark Milley. This is about the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff quitting in response.”
Publicly, Lafayette Square looked like a debacle for Milley. Several retired generals had condemned his participation, pointing out that the leader of a racially diverse military, with more than two hundred thousand active-duty Black troops, could not be seen opposing a movement for racial justice. Even Mattis, who had refrained from openly criticizing Trump, issued a statement about the “bizarre photo op.” The Washington Post reported that Mattis had been motivated to do so by his anger at the image of Milley parading through the square in his fatigues.
Whatever their personal differences, Mattis and Milley both knew that there was a tragic inevitability to the moment. Throughout his Presidency, Trump had sought to redefine the role of the military in American public life. In his 2016 campaign, he had spoken out in support of the use of torture and other practices that the military considered war crimes. Just before the 2018 midterms, he ordered thousands of troops to the southern border to combat a fake “invasion” by a caravan of migrants. In 2019, in a move that undermined military justice and the chain of command, he gave clemency to a Navy seal found guilty of posing with the dead body of a captive in Iraq.
Many considered Trump’s 2018 decision to use the military in his preëlection border stunt to be “the predicate—or the harbinger—of 2020,” in the words of Peter Feaver, a Duke University expert on civil-military relations, who taught the subject to generals at command school. When Milley, who had been among Feaver’s students, called for advice after Lafayette Square, Feaver agreed that Milley should apologize but encouraged him not to resign. “It would have been a mistake,” Feaver said. “We have no tradition of resignation in protest amongst the military.”
Milley decided to apologize in a commencement address at the National Defense University that he was scheduled to deliver the week after the photo op. Feaver’s counsel was to own up to the error and make it clear that the mistake was his and not Trump’s. Presidents, after all, “are allowed to do political stunts,” Feaver said. “That’s part of being President.”
Milley’s apology was unequivocal. “I should not have been there,” he said in the address. He did not mention Trump. “My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” It was, he added, “a mistake that I have learned from.”
At the same time, Milley had finally come to a decision. He would not quit. “Fuck that shit,” he told his staff. “I’ll just fight him.” The challenge, as he saw it, was to stop Trump from doing any more damage, while also acting in a way that was consistent with his obligation to carry out the orders of his Commander-in-Chief. Yet the Constitution offered no practical guide for a general faced with a rogue President. Never before since the position had been created, in 1949—or at least since Richard Nixon’s final days, in 1974—had a chairman of the Joint Chiefs encountered such a situation. “If they want to court-martial me, or put me in prison, have at it,” Milley told his staff. “But I will fight from the inside.”
Milley’s apology tour was private as well as public. With the upcoming election fuelling Trump’s sense of frenetic urgency, the chairman sought to get the message to Democrats that he would not go along with any further efforts by the President to deploy the machinery of war for domestic political ends. He called both Pelosi and Schumer. “After the Lafayette Square episode, Milley was extremely contrite and communicated to any number of people that he had no intention of playing Trump’s game any longer,” Bob Bauer, the former Obama White House counsel, who was then advising Joe Biden’s campaign and heard about the calls, said. “He was really burned by that experience. He was appalled. He apologized for it, and it was pretty clear he was digging his heels in.”
On Capitol Hill, however, some Democrats, including Pelosi, remained skeptical. To them, Lafayette Square proved that Milley had been a Trumpist all along. “There was a huge misunderstanding about Milley,” Adam Smith, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, recalled. “A lot of my Democratic colleagues after June 1st in particular were concerned about him.” Smith tried to assure other Democrats that “there was never a single solitary moment where it was possible that Milley was going to help Trump do anything that shouldn’t be done.”
And yet Pelosi, among others, also distrusted Milley because of an incident earlier that year in which Trump ordered the killing of the Iranian commander Qassem Suleimani without briefing congressional leaders in advance. Smith said Pelosi believed that the chairman had been “evasive” and disrespectful to Congress. Milley, for his part, felt he could not disregard Trump’s insistence that lawmakers not be notified—a breach that was due to the President’s pique over the impeachment proceedings against him. “The navigation of Trumpworld was more difficult for Milley than Nancy gives him credit for,” Smith said. He vouched for the chairman but never managed to convince Pelosi.
How long could this standoff between the Pentagon and the President go on? For the next few months, Milley woke up each morning not knowing whether he would be fired before the day was over. His wife told him she was shocked that he had not been cashiered outright when he made his apology.
Esper was also on notice. Two days after Lafayette Square, the Defense Secretary had gone to the Pentagon pressroom and offered his own apology, even revealing his opposition to Trump’s demands to invoke the Insurrection Act and use the active-duty military. Such a step, Esper said, should be reserved only for “the most urgent and dire of situations.” Trump later exploded at Esper in the Oval Office about the criticism, delivering what Milley would recall as “the worst reaming out” he had ever heard.
The next day, Trump’s latest chief of staff, Mark Meadows, called the Defense Secretary at home—three times—to get him to recant his opposition to invoking the Insurrection Act. When he refused, Meadows took “the Tony Soprano approach,” as Esper later put it, and began threatening him, before eventually backing off. (A spokesperson for Meadows disputed Esper’s account.) Esper resolved to stay in office as long as he could, “to endure all the shit and run the clock out,” as he put it. He felt that he had a particular responsibility to hold on. By law, the only person authorized to deploy troops other than the President is the Secretary of Defense. Esper was determined not to hand that power off to satraps such as Robert O’Brien, who had become Trump’s fourth and final national-security adviser, or Ric Grenell, a former public-relations man who had been serving as acting director of National Intelligence.
Both Esper and Milley found new purpose in waiting out the President. They resisted him throughout the summer, as Trump repeatedly demanded that active-duty troops quash ongoing protests, threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, and tried to stop the military from renaming bases honoring Confederate generals. “They both expected, literally on a daily basis, to be fired,” Gates recalled. Milley “would call me and essentially say, ‘I may not last until tomorrow night.’ And he was comfortable with that. He felt like he knew he was going to support the Constitution, and there were no two ways about it.”
Milley put away the resignation letter in his desk and drew up a plan, a guide for how to get through the next few months. He settled on four goals: First, make sure Trump did not start an unnecessary war overseas. Second, make sure the military was not used in the streets against the American people for the purpose of keeping Trump in power. Third, maintain the military’s integrity. And, fourth, maintain his own integrity. In the months to come, Milley would refer back to the plan more times than he could count.
Even in June, Milley understood that it was not just a matter of holding off Trump until after the Presidential election, on November 3rd. He knew that Election Day might well mark merely the beginning, not the end, of the challenges Trump would pose. The portents were worrisome. Barely one week before Lafayette Square, Trump had posted a tweet that would soon become a refrain. The 2020 Presidential race, he warned for the first time, would end up as “the greatest Rigged Election in history.”
By the evening of Monday, November 9th, Milley’s fears about a volatile post-election period unlike anything America had seen before seemed to be coming true. News organizations had called the election for Biden, but Trump refused to acknowledge that he had lost by millions of votes. The peaceful transition of power—a cornerstone of liberal democracy—was now in doubt. Sitting at home that night at around nine, the chairman received an urgent phone call from the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. With the possible exception of Vice-President Mike Pence, no one had been more slavishly loyal in public, or more privately obsequious, to Trump than Pompeo. But even he could not take it anymore.
“We’ve got to talk,” Pompeo told Milley, who was at home in Quarters Six, the red brick house that has been the official residence of chairmen of the Joint Chiefs since the early nineteen-sixties. “Can I come over?”
Milley invited Pompeo to visit immediately.
“The crazies have taken over,” Pompeo told him when they sat down at Milley’s kitchen table. Not only was Trump surrounded by the crazies; they were, in fact, ascendant in the White House and, as of that afternoon, inside the Pentagon itself. Just a few hours earlier, on the first workday after the election was called for Biden, Trump had finally fired Esper. Milley and Pompeo were alarmed that the Defense Secretary was being replaced by Christopher Miller, until recently an obscure mid-level counterterrorism official at Trump’s National Security Council, who had arrived at the Pentagon flanked by a team of what appeared to be Trump’s political minders.
For Milley, this was an ominous development. From the beginning, he understood that “if the idea was to seize power,” as he told his staff, “you are not going to do this without the military.” Milley had studied the history of coups. They invariably required the takeover of what he referred to as the “power ministries”—the military, the national police, and the interior forces.
As soon as he’d heard about Esper’s ouster, Milley had rushed upstairs to the Secretary’s office. “This is complete bullshit,” he told Esper. Milley said that he would resign in protest. “You can’t,” Esper insisted. “You’re the only one left.” Once he cooled off, Milley agreed.
In the coming weeks, Milley would repeatedly convene the Joint Chiefs, to bolster their resolve to resist any dangerous political schemes from the White House now that Esper was out. He quoted Benjamin Franklin to them on the virtues of hanging together rather than hanging separately. He told his staff that, if need be, he and all the chiefs were prepared to “put on their uniforms and go across the river together”—to threaten to quit en masse—to prevent Trump from trying to use the military to stay in power illegally.
Soon after Miller arrived at the Pentagon, Milley met with him. “First things first here,” he told the new acting Defense Secretary, who had spent the previous few months running the National Counterterrorism Center. “You are one of two people in the United States now with the capability to launch nuclear weapons.”
A Pentagon official who had worked closely with Miller had heard a rumor about him potentially replacing Esper more than a week before the election. “My first instinct was this is the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard,” the official recalled. But then he remembered how Miller had changed in the Trump White House. “He’s inclined to be a bit of a sail, and as the wind blows he will flap in that direction,” the official said. “He’s not an ideologue. He’s just a guy willing to do their bidding.” By coincidence, the official happened to be walking into the Pentagon just as Miller was entering—a video of Miller tripping on the stairs soon made the rounds. Accompanying him were three men who would, for a few weeks, at least, have immense influence over the most powerful military in the world: Kash Patel, Miller’s new chief of staff; Ezra Cohen, who would ascend to acting Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; and Anthony Tata, a retired general and a talking head on Fox News, who would become the Pentagon’s acting head of policy.
It was an extraordinary trio. Tata’s claims to fame were calling Obama a “terrorist leader”—an assertion he later retracted—and alleging that a former C.I.A. director had threatened to assassinate Trump. Patel, a former aide to Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, had been accused of spreading conspiracy theories claiming that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 election. Both Trump’s third national-security adviser, John Bolton, and Bolton’s deputy, Charles Kupperman, had vociferously objected to putting Patel on the National Security Council staff, backing down only when told that it was a personal, “must-hire” order from the President. Still, Patel found his way around them to deal with Trump directly, feeding him packets of information on Ukraine, which was outside his portfolio, according to testimony during Trump’s first impeachment. (In a statement for this article, Patel called the allegations a “total fabrication.”) Eventually, Patel was sent to help Ric Grenell carry out a White House-ordered purge of the intelligence community.
Cohen, who had worked earlier in his career at the Defense Intelligence Agency under Michael Flynn, had initially been hired at the Trump National Security Council in 2017 but was pushed out after Flynn’s swift implosion as Trump’s first national-security adviser. When efforts were later made to rehire Cohen in the White House, Bolton’s deputy vowed to “put my badge on the table” and quit. “I am not going to hire somebody that is going to be another cancer in the organization, and Ezra is cancer,” Kupperman bluntly told Trump. In the spring of 2020, Cohen landed at the Pentagon, and following Trump’s post-election shakeup he assumed the top intelligence post at the Pentagon.
Milley had firsthand reason to be wary of these new Pentagon advisers. Just before the election, he and Pompeo were infuriated when a top-secret Navy seal Team 6 rescue mission to free an American hostage held in Nigeria nearly had to be cancelled at the last minute. The Nigerians had not formally approved the mission in advance, as required, despite Patel’s assurances. “Planes were already in the air and we didn’t have the approvals,” a senior State Department official recalled. The rescue team was kept circling while diplomats tried to track down their Nigerian counterparts. They managed to find them only minutes before the planes would have had to turn back. As a result, the official said, both Pompeo and Milley, who believed he had been personally lied to, “assigned ill will to that whole cabal.” The C.I.A. refused to have anything to do with Patel, Pompeo recalled to his State Department staff, and they should be cautious as well. “The Secretary thought these people were just wackadoodles, nuts, and dangerous,” a second senior State Department official said. (Patel denied their accounts, asserting, “I caused no delay at all.”)
After Esper’s firing, Milley summoned Patel and Cohen separately to his office to deliver stern lectures. Whatever machinations they were up to, he told each of them, “life looks really shitty from behind bars. And, whether you want to realize it or not, there’s going to be a President at exactly 1200 hours on the twentieth and his name is Joe Biden. And, if you guys do anything that’s illegal, I don’t mind having you in prison.” Cohen denied that Milley said this to him, insisting it was a “very friendly, positive conversation.” Patel also denied it, asserting, “He worked for me, not the other way around.” But Milley told his staff that he warned both Cohen and Patel that they were being watched: “Don’t do it, don’t even try to do it. I can smell it. I can see it. And so can a lot of other people. And, by the way, the military will have no part of this shit.”
Part of the new team’s agenda soon became clear: making sure Trump fulfilled his 2016 campaign promise to withdraw American troops from the “endless wars” overseas. Two days after Esper was fired, Patel slid a piece of paper across the desk to Milley during a meeting with him and Miller. It was an order, with Trump’s trademark signature in black Sharpie, decreeing that all four thousand five hundred remaining troops in Afghanistan be withdrawn by January 15th, and that a contingent of fewer than a thousand troops on a counterterrorism mission in Somalia be pulled out by December 31st.
Milley was stunned. “Where’d you get this?” he said.
Patel said that it had just come from the White House.
“Did you advise the President to do this?” he asked Patel, who said no.
“Did you advise the President to do this?” he asked Miller, who said no.
“Well, then, who advised the President to do it?” Milley asked. “By law, I’m the President’s adviser on military action. How does this happen without me rendering my military opinion and advice?”
With that, he announced that he was putting on his dress uniform and going to the White House, where Milley and the others ended up in the office of the national-security adviser, Robert O’Brien.
“Where did this come from?” Milley demanded, putting the withdrawal order on O’Brien’s desk.
“I don’t know. I’ve never seen that before,” O’Brien said. “It doesn’t look like a White House memo.”
Keith Kellogg, a retired general serving as Pence’s national-security adviser, asked to see the document. “This is not the President,” he said. “The format’s not right. This is not done right.”
“Keith, you’ve got to be kidding me,” Milley said. “You’re telling me that someone’s forging the President of the United States’ signature?”
The order, it turned out, was not fake. It was the work of a rogue operation inside Trump’s White House overseen by Johnny McEntee, Trump’s thirty-year-old personnel chief, and supported by the President himself. The order had been drafted by Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and a Trump favorite from his television appearances, working with a junior McEntee aide. The order was then brought to the President, bypassing the national-security apparatus and Trump’s own senior officials, to get him to sign it.
Macgregor often appeared on Fox News demanding an exit from Afghanistan and accused Trump’s advisers of blocking the President from doing what he wanted. “He needs to send everyone out of the Oval Office who keeps telling him, ‘If you do that and something bad happens, it’s going to be blamed on you, Mr. President,’ ” Macgregor had told Tucker Carlson in January. “He needs to say, ‘I don’t give a damn.’ ”
On the day that Esper was fired, McEntee had invited Macgregor to his office, offered him a job as the new acting Defense Secretary’s senior adviser, and handed him a handwritten list of four priorities that, as Axios reported, McEntee claimed had come directly from Trump:
1. Get us out of Afghanistan.
2. Get us out of Iraq and Syria.
3. Complete the withdrawal from Germany.
4. Get us out of Africa.
Once the Afghanistan order was discovered, Trump’s advisers persuaded the President to back off, reminding him that he had already approved a plan for leaving over the following few months. “Why do we need a new plan?” Pompeo asked. Trump relented, and O’Brien then told the rest of the rattled national-security leadership that the order was “null and void.”
The compromise, however, was a new order that codified the drawdown to twenty-five hundred troops in Afghanistan by mid-January, which Milley and Esper had been resisting, and a reduction in the remaining three thousand troops in Iraq as well. The State Department was given one hour to notify leaders of those countries before the order was released.
Two nightmare scenarios kept running through Milley’s mind. One was that Trump might spark an external crisis, such as a war with Iran, to divert attention or to create a pretext for a power grab at home. The other was that Trump would manufacture a domestic crisis to justify ordering the military into the streets to prevent the transfer of power. Milley feared that Trump’s “Hitler-like” embrace of his own lies about the election would lead him to seek a “Reichstag moment.” In 1933, Hitler had seized on a fire in the German parliament to take control of the country. Milley now envisioned a declaration of martial law or a Presidential invocation of the Insurrection Act, with Trumpian Brown Shirts fomenting violence.
By late November, amid Trump’s escalating attacks on the election, Milley and Pompeo’s coöperation had deepened—a fact that the Secretary of State revealed to Attorney General Bill Barr over dinner on the night of December 1st. Barr had just publicly broken with Trump, telling the Associated Press in an interview that there was no evidence of election fraud sufficient to overturn the results. As they ate at an Italian restaurant in a Virginia strip mall, Barr recounted for Pompeo what he called “an eventful day.” And Pompeo told Barr about the extraordinary arrangement he had proposed to Milley to make sure that the country was in steady hands until the Inauguration: they would hold daily morning phone calls with Mark Meadows. Pompeo and Milley soon took to calling them the “land the plane” phone calls.
“Our job is to land this plane safely and to do a peaceful transfer of power the twentieth of January,” Milley told his staff. “This is our obligation to this nation.” There was a problem, however. “Both engines are out, the landing gear are stuck. We’re in an emergency situation.”
In public, Pompeo remained his staunchly pro-Trump self. The day after his secret visit to Milley’s house to commiserate about “the crazies” taking over, in fact, he refused to acknowledge Trump’s defeat, snidely telling reporters, “There will be a smooth transition—to a second Trump Administration.” Behind the scenes, however, Pompeo accepted that the election was over and made it clear that he would not help overturn the result. “He was totally against it,” a senior State Department official recalled. Pompeo cynically justified this jarring contrast between what he said in public and in private. “It was important for him to not get fired at the end, too, to be there to the bitter end,” the senior official said.
Both Milley and Pompeo were angered by the bumbling team of ideologues that Trump had sent to the Pentagon after the firing of Esper, a West Point classmate of Pompeo’s. The two, who were “already converging as fellow-travellers,” as one of the State officials put it, worked even more closely together as their alarm about Trump’s post-election conduct grew, although Milley was under no illusions about the Secretary of State. He believed that Pompeo, a longtime enabler of Trump who aspired to run for President himself, wanted “a second political life,” but that Trump’s final descent into denialism was the line that, at last, he would not cross. “At the end, he wouldn’t be a party to that craziness,” Milley told his staff. By early December, as they were holding their 8 a.m. land-the-plane calls, Milley was confident that Pompeo was genuinely trying to achieve a peaceful handover of power to Biden. But he was never sure what to make of Meadows. Was the chief of staff trying to land the plane or to hijack it?
Most days, Milley would also call the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, who was hardly a usual interlocutor for a chairman of the Joint Chiefs. In the final weeks of the Administration, Cipollone, a true believer in Trump’s conservative agenda, was a principal actor in the near-daily drama over Trump’s various schemes to overturn his election defeat. After getting off one call with Cipollone, Milley told a visitor that the White House counsel was “constructive,” “not crazy,” and a force for “trying to keep guardrails around the President.”
Milley continued to reach out to Democrats close to Biden to assure them that he would not allow the military to be misused to keep Trump in power. One regular contact was Susan Rice, the former Obama national-security adviser, dubbed by Democrats the Rice Channel. He also spoke several times with Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine. “My conversations with him were about the danger of some attempt to use the military to declare martial law,” King said. He took it upon himself to reassure fellow-senators. “I can’t tell you why I know this,” but the military will absolutely do the right thing, he would tell them, citing Milley’s “character and honesty.”
Milley had increasing reason to fear that such a choice might actually be forced upon him. In late November, Trump pardoned Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with Russia. Soon afterward, Flynn publicly suggested several extreme options for Trump: he could invoke martial law, appoint a special counsel, and authorize the military to “rerun” an election in the swing states. On December 18th, Trump hosted Flynn and a group of other election deniers in the Oval Office, where, for the first time in American history, a President would seriously entertain using the military to overturn an election. They brought with them a draft of a proposed Presidential order requiring the acting Defense Secretary—Christopher Miller—to “seize, collect, retain and analyze” voting machines and provide a final assessment of any findings in sixty days, well after the Inauguration was to take place. Later that night, Trump sent out a tweet beckoning his followers to descend on the capital to help him hold on to office. “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” he wrote at 1:42 a.m. “Be there, will be wild!”
Milley’s fears of a coup no longer seemed far-fetched.
While Trump was being lobbied by “the crazies” to order troops to intervene at home, Milley and his fellow-generals were concerned that he would authorize a strike against Iran. For much of his Presidency, Trump’s foreign-policy hawks had agitated for a showdown with Iran; they accelerated their efforts when they realized that Trump might lose the election. In early 2020, when Mike Pence advocated taking tough measures, Milley asked why. “Because they are evil,” Pence said. Milley recalled replying, “Mr. Vice-President, there’s a lot of evil in the world, but we don’t go to war against all of it.” Milley grew even more nervous before the election, when he heard a senior official tell Trump that if he lost he should strike Iran’s nuclear program. At the time, Milley told his staff that it was a “What the fuck are these guys talking about?” moment. Now it seemed frighteningly possible.
Robert O’Brien, the national-security adviser, had been another frequent cheerleader for tough measures: “Mr. President, we should hit ’em hard, hit ’em hard with everything we have.” Esper, in his memoir, called “hit them hard” O’Brien’s “tedious signature phrase.” (O’Brien disputed this, saying, “The quote attributed to me is not accurate.”)
In the week of Esper’s firing, Milley was called to the White House to present various military options for attacking Iran and encountered a disturbing performance by Miller, the new acting Defense Secretary. Miller later told Jonathan Karl, of ABC, that he had intentionally acted like a “fucking madman” at the meeting, just three days into his tenure, pushing various escalatory scenarios for responding to Iran’s breakout nuclear capacities.
Miller’s behavior did not look intentional so much as unhelpful to Milley, as Trump kept asking for alternatives, including an attack inside Iran on its ballistic-weapons sites. Milley explained that this would be an illegal preëmptive act: “If you attack the mainland of Iran, you will be starting a war.” During another clash with Trump’s more militant advisers, when Trump was not present, Milley was even more explicit. “If we do what you’re saying,” he said, “we are all going to be tried as war criminals in The Hague.”
Trump often seemed more bluster than bite, and the Pentagon brass still believed that he did not want an all-out war, yet he continued pushing for a missile strike on Iran even after that November meeting. If Trump said it once, Milley told his staff, he said it a thousand times. “The thing he was most worried about was Iran,” a senior Biden adviser who spoke with Milley recalled. “Milley had had the experience more than once of having to walk the President off the ledge when it came to retaliating.”
The biggest fear was that Iran would provoke Trump, and, using an array of diplomatic and military channels, American officials warned the Iranians not to exploit the volatile domestic situation in the U.S. “There was a distinct concern that Iran would take advantage of this to strike at us in some way,” Adam Smith, the House Armed Services chairman, recalled.
Among those pushing the President to hit Iran before Biden’s Inauguration, Milley believed, was the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. On December 18th, the same day that Trump met with Flynn to discuss instituting martial law, Milley met with Netanyahu at his home in Jerusalem to personally urge him to back off with Trump. “If you do this, you’re gonna have a fucking war,” Milley told him.
Two days later, on December 20th, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq fired nearly two dozen rockets at the American Embassy in Baghdad. Trump responded by publicly blaming Iran and threatening major retaliation if so much as a single American was killed. It was the largest attack on the Green Zone in more than a decade, and exactly the sort of provocation Milley had been dreading.
During the holidays, tensions with Iran escalated even more as the first anniversary of the American killing of Suleimani approached. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that “those who ordered the murder of General Soleimani” would “be punished.” Late on the afternoon of Sunday, January 3rd, Trump met with Milley, Miller, and his other national-security advisers on Iran. Pompeo and Milley discussed a worrisome new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency. But, by the end, even Pompeo and O’Brien, the Iran hawks, opposed a military strike at this late hour in Trump’s Presidency. “He realized the clock ran out,” Milley told his staff. Trump, consumed with his election fight, backed off.
At the end of the meeting with his security chiefs, the President pulled Miller aside and asked him if he was ready for the upcoming January 6th protest. “It’s going to be a big deal,” Milley heard Trump tell Miller. “You’ve got enough people to make sure it’s safe for my people, right?” Miller assured him he did. This was the last time that Milley would ever see Trump.
On January 6th, Milley was in his office at the Pentagon meeting with Christine Wormuth, the lead Biden transition official for the Defense Department. In the weeks since the election, Milley had started displaying four networks at once on a large monitor across from the round table where he and Wormuth sat: CNN and Fox News, as well as the small pro-Trump outlets Newsmax and One America News Network, which had been airing election disinformation that even Fox would not broadcast. “You’ve got to know what the enemy is up to,” Milley had joked when Wormuth noticed his viewing habits at one of their meetings.
Milley and Wormuth that day were supposed to discuss the Pentagon’s plans to draw down U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as well as the Biden team’s hopes to mobilize large-scale covid vaccination sites around the country. But, as they realized in horror what was transpiring on the screen in front of them, Milley was summoned to an urgent meeting with Miller and Ryan McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army. They had not landed the plane, after all. The plane was crashing.
Milley entered the Defense Secretary’s office at 2:30 p.m., and they discussed deploying the D.C. National Guard and mobilizing National Guard units from nearby states and federal agents under the umbrella of the Justice Department. Miller issued an order at 3:04 p.m. to send in the D.C. Guard.
But it was too late to prevent the humiliation: Congress had been overwhelmed by a mob of election deniers, white-supremacist militia members, conspiracy theorists, and Trump loyalists. Milley worried that this truly was Trump’s “Reichstag moment,” the crisis that would allow the President to invoke martial law and maintain his grip on power.
From the secure facility at Fort McNair, where they had been brought by their protective details, congressional leaders called on the Pentagon to send forces to the Capitol immediately. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were suspicious of Miller: Whose side was this unknown Trump appointee on? Milley tried to reassure the Democratic leadership that the uniformed military was on the case, and not there to do Trump’s bidding. The Guard, he told them, was coming.
It was already after three-thirty by then, however, and the congressional leaders were furious that it was taking so long. They also spoke with Mike Pence, who offered to call the Pentagon as well. He reached Miller around 4 p.m., with Milley still in his office listening in. “Clear the Capitol,” Pence ordered.
Although it was the Vice-President who was seeking to defend the Capitol, Meadows wanted to pretend that Trump was the one taking action. He called Milley, telling him, “We have to kill the narrative that the Vice-President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative that the President is still in charge.” Milley later dismissed Meadows, whose spokesperson denied Milley’s account, as playing “politics, politics, politics.”
The Guard finally arrived at the Capitol by 5:40 p.m., “sprint speed” for the military, as Milley would put it, but not nearly fast enough for some members of Congress, who would spend months investigating why it took so long. By 7 p.m., a perimeter had been set up outside the Capitol, and F.B.I. and A.T.F. agents were going door to door in the Capitol’s many hideaways and narrow corridors, searching for any remaining rioters.
That night, waiting for Congress to return and formally ratify Trump’s electoral defeat, Milley called one of his contacts on the Biden team. He explained that he had spoken with Meadows and Pat Cipollone at the White House, and that he had been on the phone with Pence and the congressional leaders as well. But Milley never heard from the Commander-in-Chief, on a day when the Capitol was overrun by a hostile force for the first time since the War of 1812. Trump, he said, was both “shameful” and “complicit.”
Later, Milley would often think back to that awful day. “It was a very close-run thing,” the historically minded chairman would say, invoking the famous line of the Duke of Wellington after he had only narrowly defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. Trump and his men had failed in their execution of the plot, failed in part by failing to understand that Milley and the others had never been Trump’s generals and never would be. But their attack on the election had exposed a system with glaring weaknesses. “They shook the very Republic to the core,” Milley would eventually reflect. “Can you imagine what a group of people who are much more capable could have done?” ♦
This is drawn from “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021.”
An earlier version of this article mistakenly attributed a quote to Mark Esper’s book.Published in the print edition of the August 15, 2022, issue, with the headline “Trump’s Last General.”
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-08-09 | Categories: knowledge, opinion, politics | Tags: Donald Trump, responsability, USA, values | Leave a comment
A Lei e os códigos de conduta
A característica mais fantástica dos códigos de conduta de Augusto Santos Silva não era disfarçar o desconhecimento da lei. Era permitir aos governantes socialistas fazer aquilo que a lei os impedia de fazer.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-07-27 | Categories: conhecimento, curiosidades, gestão pública, ironia | Tags: augusto santos silva, códigos conduta, falta de vergonha, galpgate | Leave a comment
A Fé de Temido
Marta Temido acha que a fé vai resolver os problemas do SNS.
Eu tenho a certeza de que os problemas só serão resolvidos quando o SNS se livrar do PS.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-07-26 | Categories: curiosidades, gestão pública, ironia | Tags: falta de vergonha, fé, futuro, marta temido | Leave a comment
Discriminação
As quotas fazem tudo menos garantir equidade. Igualdade é o seu objectivo e a igualdade não garante qualidade, nem mérito.
Defender quotas é defender discriminação.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-07-25 | Categories: democracia, opinião, responsabilidade | Tags: discrinimação, equidade, mérito, quotas | Leave a comment
Estado da Nação é o Estado de Obediência
O Estado da Nação, apesar do Primeiro-ministro não ter respondido às perguntas, acabou por ser dos mais esclarecedores dos últimos anos.
António Costa, titular por excelência do poder executivo, evidenciou todo o seu desrespeito pelos deputados, representantes do poder legislativo. A falta de respeito foi directamente dirigida aos deputados da oposição, porém, os deputados do PS acabaram por participar no ridículo ao aplaudir o silêncio do Primeiro-ministro.
Este tipo de postura é ilustrativo do que se passa no âmbito partidário português. O comportamento que é expectável nos partidos dos extremos, o PCP e o BE à esquerda e o Chega à direita, a obediência ao líder, passou também a ser a norma no PS.
Não tenho qualquer dúvida de que António Costa institucionalizou e potenciou as práticas que José Sócrates implementou. O aplauso dos deputados do PS ao triste episódio do Primeiro-ministro a desrespeitar os deputados da oposição diz tudo.
Quem não obedecer ao líder corre o risco de não voltar a ser deputado. E noutros níveis também. Quem não obedecer ao líder não contará com o apoio do PS e/ou não voltará a ser candidato. Nas câmaras e nas freguesias. Seja onde for, seja como for, seja quem for.
Que outra razão explica que os autarcas socialistas tenham aceitado um processo de descentralização que só prejudicará as suas autarquias a médio e a curto prazo? Talvez esperem ter dado o salto para outro lugar ou já tenham atingido o limite de mandatos? Talvez? Independentemente disso, agora obedeceram. Longe vão os tempos do Guilherme Pinto.
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-07-21 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: antónio costa, desrespeito, falta de vergonha, guilherme pinto, obediência, ps | Leave a comment
7 anos em 3 meses
Após três meses, temos um governo de fim de ciclo. As tensões acumuladas nos últimos sete anos já não são controláveis sem uma cedência final. E essa cedência aconteceu. António Costa é um “líder” a prazo.
O PS é hoje uma manta de retalhos. A vários níveis. Tudo começou com Guterres que, sem possuir características de líder, chegou a líder pelos consensos. E cedeu tanto em nome desses consensos que acabou no pântano.
Os consensos de António Guterres ditaram o esmorecimento do PS democrático. Foi nos Estados Gerais que o PS começou a ser infestado por comunistas e afins, alguns dos quais se infiltraram pela juventude socialista. Foi aqui que começou a desaparecer o PS soarista. Foi também aqui os jovens “garnisés” socialistas começaram a avaliar que capital político tinham para o futuro. E testaram-no desafiando a autoridade de Guterres, que demonstrou ter pouca. Que o diga António Costa. Encostou Guterres à parede e este cedeu.
Com as Novas Fronteiras de José Sócrates o processo acelerou. A influência dos extremistas cresceu dento do PS e foi nesta altura que uma franja do eleitorado passou a ser disputada entre o PS e o BE. Seria expectável que com António Costa o PS regressasse à senda democrática. Contudo, assim não sucedeu. António Costa, rodeado de ex-comunistas e ex-bloquistas, consolidou e ampliou o neo-socialismo de Sócrates. As leis de Sócrates ainda regem. A dívida não é para pagar. E António Costa obedece.
Há sete anos que António Costa é Primeiro-ministro. Nesse período, foi incapaz de governar sem o apoio e as exigências da esquerda radical. Esse apoio levou a que tivesse de pôr o PS democrático na gaveta. António Costa, que sempre negou a deriva socialista para o radicalismo, teve, com a maioria obtida em janeiro último, uma oportunidade para provar que o PS fazia parte do socialismo democrático. Na hora da verdade, António Costa falhou redondamente. Não só aprovou um orçamento de esquerda, como também manteve os representantes do socialismo extremista no seu governo. Pedro Nuno Santos e João Galamba, entre outros, são exemplo, estando o primeiro já há algum tempo a posicionar-se para ascender à liderança do PS. Se ainda não perceberam, Pedro Nuno Santos é o “garnisé” de António Costa.
O problema de Pedro Nuno Santos não se cinge ao seu radicalismo, teimosia e intransigência. Apesar das características de personalidade de Pedro Nuno Santos deverem ser respeitadas, a verdade é que a sua arrogância, prepotência e convencimento de que tem sempre razão não ajudam. Quem tiver o cuidado que analisar o comportamento, a postura e a maneira como se expressa chegará à conclusão de que Pedro Nuno Santos é estruturalmente autoritário. Denota desprezo quando tem de falar com aqueles que não são da esquerda – a democracia e a oposição incomodam-no – e fico sempre com a sensação de que Pedro Nuno Santos não dialoga. Dá ordens.
A sinceridade demonstrada por Pedro Nuno Santos no seu recente acto de contrição público foi notável. Comovi-me como há muito não me acontecia. A repulsa que manifestou foi indisfarçável e acabou por não pedir desculpa aos portugueses. Lamento, mas os arrogantes não procuram redenção. E o que Pedro Nuno Santos quer é o poder. Quer tanto o poder que não se importa de se contrariar, nem de diminuir o Primeiro-ministro para o alcançar.
Ora, segundo António Costa, Pedro Nuno Santos é um Ministro competente e não agiu de má-fé. É por isso que continua no Governo. Meus senhores, acabamos de assistir à tremedeira dos sete anos. E não duvidem que vários pares de pernas tremeram. Pedro Nuno Santos ultrapassou os limites da sua autonomia, desrespeitou o seu chefe de governo e menosprezou o Presidente da República. Apesar das pernas lhe terem tremido, afrontou o “líder” e só foi desautorizado. É António Costa, a quem as pernas tremeram ainda mais, que fica descredibilizado. E será sobre ele que a responsabilidade cairá.
António Costa diz que ele é quem escolhe e demite os ministros, mas não faz nada sem a autorização deles. Costa é o Guterres do século XXI. Foi encostado à parede por Pedro Nuno Santos e cedeu.
Passados sete anos, tudo se revela em três meses. Esta tremedeira é o acumular das tensões resultantes dos consensos de António Costa. O XXIII Governo só tem três meses, mas já é um governo de final de ciclo. Depois deste episódio, a liderança de António Costa vai diminuir ainda mais. Quer no Governo, quer no PS. António Costa é um “líder” a prazo.
Tudo porque desta última cedência de Costa, numa conversa de 45 minutos em São Bento, foi muito provavelmente acordado que António Costa se vai embora antes do fim da legislatura e Pedro Nuno Santos será o sucessor.
Todavia, a última palavra será de Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.
Brevemente num Observador perto de si!
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-07-02 | Categories: curiosidades, ironia, opinião, política, valores | Tags: antónio costa, antónio guterres, futuro, pedro nuno santos, ps | Leave a comment
We Shall Never Surrender
1.
To describe both Europe’s current circumstances and the measure of our resolve, Churchill’s sentence is the most fitting. Against those who uphold totalitarian ideas there is only one position: an unequivocally reaffirmation of democratic principles! One cannot just say. One must also act accordingly. And yes. Democracy and Freedom have costs!
Furthermore, by evoking Churchill and the context in which such words where expressed, we are remembered to what today is at stake. At the time, the choice was between defend or compromise our values and principles. At the time, despite all the warnings, Nazi threats were ignored.
Chamberlain was not willing to let go his appeasement policy. He was so keen to the idea that even after the Anschluss, Chamberlain went to the point of sanction Hitler’s desire on the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia (1938). Only after intense diplomatic pressure of the British (and the French) Government, did the Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš agreed with the demands for Sudeten autonomy. Later that year, the Munich Conference, classified by Chamberlain as the moment of “peace for our time”, handed over the Sudetenland districts to Germany. This signified the first sign of real concession, and we already know what happened next.
Hitler tactics were simple. Through local supporters, preferably with ethnic ties and endowed with political organization, subversive acts would be carried out to provide a pretext for German military action. Who was Hitler’s trusted man in the Sudetenland region? Konrad Henlein.
History is our greatest Teacher. We must learn its lessons. As such, it is primordial to bear in mind that even after all these events, among the British corridors of power there were those who argued for a peace treaty with Hitler. Imagine how history would have been if such moment had happened?
To have a better understanding of the subject under consideration, we also cannot disregard the consequences of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its Secret Protocol, which defined the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence across Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland.
Neither Stalin nor the Bolsheviks ever got over the territory loss caused by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918). The signing of the Treaty was all but peaceful. During the discussion within the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, when Lenin told the delegates that saving the world revolution required validate such shameful peace and if they did not sign, he would resign, he was called a traitor. So, Stalin saw in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact the opportunity to recover Lenin’s lost empire. As we know, in Yalta he went further, and soviet influence reached another level.
2.
The aftermath of the Second World War represented the beginning of a new international framework. Faced with the failure of the League of Nations, the leaders of the Allied countries began a new process of international negotiation that culminated in the creation of a new intergovernmental organization, the United Nations (UN) and with it a new regulation for international law. Key examples are the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The UN Charter codifies the major principles of international relations, varying from sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. One of the objectives expressed in its preamble is “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained” and all UN members are bond to it. Putin’s Russia is no exception.
Danielle Young says that “since its inception, whatever post-war international order that exists has been under siege.” Yes, as we live in a world of nations, we can accept that view. Within the realm of international relations, realism and the importance of power and the balance of power as guarantees of security reigns supreme. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that the current international environment is different from the one that prevailed before the Second World War.
Hans Morgenthau in its 1948 book – Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace – enumerated the six principles of realism. Although he had stressed the significance of foreign policy ethic dimension, policy makers paid little attention to it. Today, unfortunately, two of Morgenthau’s tenets – that realism is a perspective aware of the moral significance of political action; and the moral aspirations of a single community or a state may not be universally valid or shared – are almost forgotten.
3.
Throughout history how many times was language, and ethnic population, and “protection” evoked as an argument to disrespect international law? Putin and his supporters have been mimicking Hitler’s tactics.
Relations between Russia and Georgia began to worsen after the 2003 Georgian Rose Revolution, which caused the downfall of Eduard Shevardnadze and signal a pro-Western foreign policy aiming a European and Euro-Atlantic integration. By April 2008, relations between both countries reached a full diplomatic crisis, and in August Russia invaded Georgia. How did Medvedev justify this decision? Russia wanted to shield and help the two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Concerning the latter Putin also argued that the military intervention was to protect Osseitians from Georgian “genocide.” Who were the Kremlin friends in Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoyty.
In 2014, after the Kremlin loss of political influence due to Maidan Revolution and the consequent ousting of Viktor Yanukovych and his government, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Once again, Putin employed Nazi tactics. Pro-Russian demonstrations were held in Sevastopol, masked Russian troops without insignia took over the Supreme Council of Crimea and Sergey Aksyonov, a declared Kremlin supporter, with the presence of the gunmen armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and rocket launchers, was “elected” Prime Minister of Crimea.
What triggered Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and annex Crimea? His concerns about the people of Crimea ability to freely express their will. That is why Russian troops occupied Crimea. To ensure freedom of speech and of choice. Curiously, while Yanukovych was in power and Russia maintained influence over the political decisions made in Kyiv, Putin saw no problem with the Crimeans freedom of expression.
Finally, what was the reason given by Putin to justify the invasion of Ukraine? “Denazification.” Intriguingly, the Kremlin gave no justification about the war crimes committed by the Russian troops, the attacks to civilians, and, among other things, the looting and theft of Ukrainian cereals.
4.
Once again, the choice is between defend or compromise our values and principles. Once again, all warnings were ignored. All those, including Henry Kissinger, who say that we must find a way to save Putin’s face are wrong.
We keep neglecting Karaganov’s Doctrine. We keep disregarding Dugin’s concepts. We keep forgetting that Empire is the most enduring idea within all Russians elites, regardless of the epoch. We keep ignoring that Putin’s regime is nothing but a corporativist system. Let me ask you this. Concerning Crimea’s annexation what is more plausible? An act of Russian nationalism or an act of Russian imperialism?
Putin evaluated us in Georgia. Almost nothing was done. Putin annexed Crimea. Again, almost nothing was done. Putin invaded Ukraine. Finally, we are really reacting. But if our position weakens, Putin will do whatever and wherever he wants. Concerning Europe, this is what Putin and his staff desire: Russians want to be in, throw the Americans out and keep the Germans down. Which they will only accomplish with NATO disbanding.
The last thing we should do is save Putin’s face. Neither Putin nor his entourage can be trusted. Obviously, I am not advocating an invasion of Russia to overthrow Putin. That task falls entirely to the Russian people. What is essential to do is to unmask Putin’s lies, to show that he is an autocratic despot and to encourage those who have the courage to stand up to him through democratic procedures.
The latest form of Russian blackmail is the threat of nuclear war. Either they give me what I want, or else. We simply cannot give in. Nothing guarantees us that Putin will stop. In fact, his behavior indicates that what will surely happen are more abuses and demands. If Putin starts a nuclear war, it will not just be our children who will die. Losses will be global.
Circumstances may reveal people’s abilities, but it is choices that bring out character. Both Putin and Zelensky are revealing who they are. So must we. As such, we must be worthy of those who gave their last measure of devotion for us. We must show the same unwavering resolution and do what is right.
That is the only way we will properly honor those who allowed us to be what we are – Churchill, de Gaulle, Roosevelt, Pierlot, Dupong, Adenauer, Monnet, Schuman, Spaak, among many others.
Brevemente, num Observador perto de si!
Partilhar / Share this:
Posted by VFS | 2022-06-06 | Categories: knowledge, liberdade, opinion, politics, relações internacionais, responsabilidade, valores | Tags: EU, freedom, future, history, International relations, NATO, Putin, Ukraine, UN | Leave a comment
Aviso
Não me responsabilizo pelas opiniões expressas em comentários.
Opiniões contrárias são bem-vindas, e aceitarei toda e qualquer opinião, agradecendo que a mesma não seja mal-educada e/ou ofensiva.
Muito obrigado!
Sou Liberal!
Contudo, para mim, Liberdade não é apenas a possibilidade de escolher.
Liberdade é aceitar as responsabilidades da escolha!
É nesse pressuposto que partilho da ideia de liberalismo económico (na linha de Adam Smith e de Friedrich von Hayek)
VFS

Declaração de interesses
Para aqueles que não me conhecem, e mesmo para os que já me conhecem, nenhuma das minhas intervenções de cidadania, públicas ou privadas, visa a moralidade quer dos meus concidadãos, quer do país.
Não conheço ninguém que seja 100% moral! Eu não o sou.
Por outro lado, penso que todos seremos 100% humanos.
Como tal, tudo aquilo que faço é na procura da decência, especialmente no âmbito pessoal.
Dou sempre o benefício da dúvida. Evito ao máximo fazer juízos de valor, mas não me coíbo de expressar uma opinião crítica.
Há algo que toda e qualquer pessoa pode esperar de mim: Perguntas!

Contacto
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Recent Posts
- Nothing justifies murder
- A Reflection on Power, Principle, and the Erosion of Constitutional Norms
- Religious war?
- It Can’t Happen Here
- Can a Regional War Reshape Global Energy Order?
- Sobre a governação em tempos de turbulência emocional
- Um novo bipartidarismo?
- Ler mais
- Dalton Trumbo
- Mirror reflections
Top views
Conexões
- 2 Dedos de Conversa
- 31 da armada
- 4R – Quarta República
- 5 dias
- A Destreza das Dúvidas
- A Educação do meu Umbigo
- A Origem das Espécies
- Abrupto
- Albergue Espanhol
- Arrastão
- Aventar
- Blasfémias
- Blogoexisto
- Causa Liberal
- Câmara de Comuns
- Corta-fitas
- Da Literatura
- Da Política
- De Rerum Natura
- Delito de Opinião
- Desvio Colossal
- Direito de opinião
- Do Portugal Profundo
- duas ou três coisas
- ESTADO SENTIDO
- Fiel Inimigo
- Geração de 80
- hoje há conquilhas, amanhã não sabemos
- Inflaccionista
- Instituto da Democracia Portuguesa
- literatura pnet
- Lugar do Conhecimento
- Margens de Erro
- Meditação na Pastelaria
- O Cachimbo de Magritte
- O Fidalgo
- O Insurgente
- O pior e o melhor de Matosinhos
- O TRIUNFO DOS PORCOS
- Outras Margens
- Porta da Loja
- Portugal Contemporâneo
- quintacativa
- Quintus
- reVISÕES
- Sedes
- Sobre o tempo que passa
- TriploV
- visto da economia
- Vox Pop
Dentro
Fora
- Arab news
- Cape Argus
- Corriere della Sera
- El País
- Financial Times
- Folha Online
- Haaretz
- Hindustan Times
- International Herald Tribune
- Jornal do Brasil online
- L’ Express
- La Stampa
- Le Monde
- Le Monde diplomatique
- Mail & Guardian online
- New Yorker
- Pravda
- Russia Today
- Telegraph
- The Australian
- The Independent
- The Japan Times online
- The Jerusalem Post
- The New York Times
- The Times of India
- The Washington Post
- Times online
outros Cosmos
Archives
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

























Recent Comments