Carlos Fino (*) interviewed for PRESSENZA

By Vasco Esteves

Carlos Fino was born in Portugal and was a radio and television reporter, war correspondent, news service presenter and press counsellor for four decades. He has travelled to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Brazil. He has worked in Lisbon, Moscow, Brussels, Washington and Brasilia. He is perhaps the best-known Portuguese reporter in the world. He was an award-winning journalist, wrote books and has a doctorate in Communication Sciences. In 2022, he returned to Portugal to – as he himself says – “no longer be in the limelight of international politics and journalism and to lead a quieter life” with his wife, trying to live out his “aurea mediocritas” in the good old-fashioned way.

As soon as he arrived in Portugal in 2022, however, the Ukrainian war broke out, and he was deeply shocked by how it unfolded. He remained reluctant to intervene, but now he has decided to make an exception and give this exclusive interview to PRESSENZA about his experiences in Eastern Europe and the possible geopolitical conclusions that this experience will allow him to draw.
The first part of the interview, published a few days ago, dealt with Carlos Fino’s experiences in Moscow and during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the forced break-up of Yugoslavia.
In this second part, he talks about the current war in Ukraine, Eastern Europe in general, as well as ongoing deglobalisation and the emerging new world order.

The current war in Ukraine


Let’s talk now about the current war in Ukraine. Carlos, where were you and what was your first reaction when you learnt that Russian troops had invaded Ukraine last year, in February 2022?

Carlos Fino:

I was returning to Portugal from Brazil. I came with the determination to no longer be on the “front page” of international politics and to lead a quieter life. In that respect, this interview is an exception. My whole life has been “spent” and dedicated to international politics and journalism and I wanted to get away from that for a while and do what the ancients called “aurea mediocritas”, which is to be here enjoying the good things in life, away from the big scene. But I was shocked by the way events unfolded.

Although, in truth, the outbreak of hostilities was increasingly to be expected, because Ukraine is situated right on the border of two major tectonic plates in geopolitical terms: the West and Russia. It is therefore in a very delicate situation, which would require politicians with a great deal of knowledge and ability to prevent it from reaching this point.

However, given what had been going on since 2014, first with the forcible removal of the Ukrainian president who had been elected in a vote validated by the OSCE, and then the creation of an openly anti-Russian regime in Kiev that carried out military attacks on the Donbass (which did not want to submit to this 2014 change), a situation that lasted for eight years, with thousands of victims, it was therefore increasingly expected, and even inevitable, that at some point Russia would intervene – as it did.

Could the war in Ukraine have been avoided by the West?

Of course, it could have, it would have been very simple: all it would have taken was for Ukraine not to enter NATO, or to postpone it and guarantee neutral status for the country. There’s nothing otherworldly about it: Austria has remained neutral since the end of World War II, and has only profited from it. On the other hand, from an internal point of view, Kiev could very well recognise the autonomy of Donbass, just as Portugal recognises the autonomy of the Azores or Spain recognises the autonomy of Catalonia. That would have prevented the war.

So, you don’t think that in Ukraine the West is defending democracy against dictatorships – or at least against a dictatorship – but rather defending its own economic, strategic, geopolitical interests…

… yes, geopolitical, at least as they are understood by the current Western leadership. But we can imagine another orientation, one of recognising the legitimacy of Russian security concerns. I don’t see why this couldn’t have been done. Russia obviously has security concerns that can be addressed and that to a certain extent are legitimate and can at least be the subject of negotiation. But now, apparently, the neo-con current that dominates in Washington has realised that no, this war is the way to weaken Russia even more; that’s why war has become practically inevitable.

Defending democracy, but which democracy? The current regime in Kiev has banned at least 11 Ukrainian parties, wanted to impose the use of the Ukrainian language even in Russian-speaking regions, banned television channels: the democratic standards of the Ukrainian regime are far from normal European democracy.

So, this war is, on the Ukrainian side, a “proxy war” by the US against Russia, and that Ukraine is somehow being sacrificed for objectives that are not its own?

… so it seems. Ultimately, this is a war between cousins over the Soviet heritage. This could have been limited to a regional conflict, and not turned into a principled conflict of global significance, which could even lead to World War III and a nuclear catastrophe. That wouldn’t necessarily have to be the case. There are other things behind it. To say that this is a war of democracy against dictatorship is a tour de force for propaganda purposes. Frankly, from everything I read, it seems to me that the Ukrainian regime is neither more democratic nor less corrupt than the Russian regime.

So, this is a war that was provoked to some extent by the West and NATO?

Yes, let’s say it was provoked above all by the regime change in Kiev in 2014. Basically, this is a civil war, or it was until it turned into a conflict with Russia, and potentially into a global conflict. But at first it was an internal war within a country: there was a part of the country that didn’t want to submit to the other part. So, as I said, it was a fight of cousins over the Soviet inheritance, with the aggravating factor that, on the Russian side, there is the historical argument: because the Donbass has been Russian since the 18th century, because practically all the major cities in the Donbass were founded by Russians at least since the 17th century, and they speak Russian, the majority of the population is Russian-speaking.

Imagine that Portugal, at the end of its imperial phase, lost the Algarve, and the Algarve would have been integrated into Spain: Spain, instead of accepting the Algarve’s logical autonomy, began to impose the Spanish language on the Algarve, banned Portuguese-language channels in the Algarve and sent armies to attack the Algarvians. How would the Algarvians react, and how would Lisbon react in such a situation?

Another territory that has always wanted a degree of autonomy, but which has never been respected by Ukraine, is Crimea. A few days ago I read that when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Crimea became independent even before Ukraine itself. It was Ukraine that, when it too became independent a few months later, tried to integrate Crimea into its fold. It entered, then left, then re-entered and then left again because, whenever it was inside Ukraine, it never managed to have its autonomy respected as it had been promised…

There is also a historical context, a centuries-old dispute with Russia and Russian influence on the Black Sea. You only have to remember that in the 19th century there were two wars in Crimea, with France and England intervening, as well as Turkey against Russia over the dispute of influence in that area. The Sea of Azov was also conquered by the Russians during the time of Peter the Great. Russian influence in the area came and went, and came and went, but it remained predominantly Russian.

This is also a factor that has to be taken into account when analysing the problem: there is a historical dispute between the great powers over their presence in and control of the Black Sea, which for the Russians is their only access to the Mediterranean. The Russians have always been predominant in that area. What lies behind the current war in Ukraine also has to do with the strategic interests of some Western countries and the US in militarily controlling the Black Sea: if Ukraine were to join NATO, the Russians would no longer have free access to the Black Sea, for example.

In the meantime, all these problems could, in my opinion, have been solved in a very simple way: if Ukraine’s neutrality had been recognised. I personally am very sorry, I have several Ukrainian friends, the country is a very beautiful region, especially in the south and west, but there is a historical fragmentation there: the West has influence mainly in the western part, which has traditionally been more closely linked to Poland and Germany, while in the south of the country (at least since the 17th-18th centuries) the Russian language and traditions dominate. In the circumstances of such a culturally and even linguistically fragmented country, the only possible solution was to remain neutral.

In this respect, I think the Ukrainians missed a historic opportunity. Look: Ukraine has never had such a large territory as it does today, because its territory has always been disputed by the empires around it, either by the Polish-Lithuanian empire, or by the Russian empire, or by the Turkish empire. Part of the current territory of Ukraine had been Russian and was assigned to it by Lenin; later, at the end of the Second World War, Stalin made sure that the western part (the Lviv area, which formerly belonged to Poland) was also integrated into Ukraine; then, already in the 20th century, Khrushchov handed over the administration of Crimea to Kiev. So, due to a number of different historical circumstances, Ukraine arrived at the end of the 20th century, after the end of the Soviet Union, with a huge territory, even the largest country in Europe. If Kiev pursued a more democratic and neutral policy, it had the historic opportunity to consolidate itself as a major European state, an opportunity that has now disappeared! Unless Russia collapses militarily, Ukraine has already lost Donbass and Crimea. And if it loses the war, it also risks losing the western part of the country, because the Poles believe that it historically belongs to Poland. So I think it was a historic mistake for the new Ukrainian regime that emerged from the so-called “Maidan Revolution” to opt for confrontation rather than conciliation.

Just two more short questions about Ukraine. The first: who do you think destroyed the Nord Stream gas pipelines, and with what intention?

I recommend you talk to Seymour Hersh …

… this American investigative journalist said it was the CIA…

I don’t think we need to go to the witch or get lost in guesswork: this was promised by US President Biden at a press conference, where he said that the US would find ways to destroy them if the Russians intervened…

But then that means an act of military war against Germany and Russia!

Germany doesn’t seem to have done much to investigate who did it.

The Germans have already investigated something, but are keeping their findings completely secret…

Yes, but “he who remains silent, consents”, doesn’t he?

And the other short question is: how do you think this war will end? What role could Ukraine and Russia play in a post-war?

Predictions are usually wrong. “Expect the unexpectable”, as someone once said, or “the most likely thing is what nobody predicted”! Anyway, many things can happen. For the time being, the Russians are limiting themselves to containing Ukrainian attacks and decimating as many Western soldiers and war materiel as possible in Ukraine. To what extent will the Russians stick to this tactic, or are they waiting for the moment they deem appropriate to launch a counter-offensive, and how far might that counter-offensive go? I think that the Russians are not interested in occupying the whole of Ukraine, but that they will maintain control over the Donbass and Crimea. It will be very difficult to get them out of those two regions. What will be left of the Ukrainian state after the war? To what extent will this regime be able to maintain the huge number of human losses and destruction of infrastructure? How long will the population put up with this without a change of policy in Kiev? To what extent will Western support continue? What will happen after the US elections in 2024? Many questions, many doubts, few answers, no certainty. In any case, I don’t think it’s feasible to return to the pre-war status quo.

Do you think that if Trump wins the next elections in North America, the Ukrainian war will end quickly?

First, we need to know if he can run again. And if he does, whether he’ll win. That’s unknown. And Trump himself is an unknown. Although it’s true that he hasn’t started any wars in his time…

…he hasn’t started any new wars, but he has continued others, for example the military intervention in Syria. And he started a trade war against China. In short, he got involved in other wars…

This depends on US strategic interests, which may now be more interested in turning to confrontation with China. The Ukrainian standoff is becoming more and more expensive…

Cover of a book by Carlos Fino

Eastern Europe

I’d like to ask you a few questions about Eastern Europe in general. Which other Eastern European countries have you covered with your reports?

I’ve been to practically all the countries of the former “iron curtain”, at critical and/or transitional moments: Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the GDR, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, but also Albania, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabahk, Chechnya and even Afghanistan (after the attacks on the twin towers). And I was in the former Yugoslavia more than once, but not during the war – by then I was already a correspondent for RTP in Washington (1998-2000).

What were the most exciting moments or experiences you had during that period?

The most impactful for me personally and in positive terms were certainly the Solidarity Movement in Poland and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. I very much regret not having been at the fall of the Berlin Wall – I was travelling to Moscow at the time and RTP decided to send another journalist to Berlin. I would have loved to have been able to share those moments of joy and liberation. But the Solidarity Movement in Poland, with the great influence of the Catholic Church and the Polish Pope at the time [Pope John Paul II], Wojtyła, and then also the changes that took place in Czechoslovakia, were the moments that remain most in my memory.

The case of Czechoslovakia, by the way, is an absolute example of how a country can split in two for good, without wars or conflicts: in Czechia and Slovakia.

Well, that could also have happened in Ukraine. But it didn’t even have to come to that, because the Donbass was originally part of Ukraine and there was no need to separate from it. But perhaps the darkest case was Romania and the doubts about how the whole thing was orchestrated. I’m talking about the fall of Ceaușescu, the liquidation of him and his wife. I was in Romania at the time.

When the Berlin Wall fell, we were all very happy. But in Germany we realised that this was only the beginning of major changes that would take place throughout Eastern Europe, that it wasn’t just a local phenomenon…

Gorbachev pulled the rug out from under Honecker [president of the GDR, or East Germany until 1989]! And, for a handful of marks, he negotiated with Kohl [Chancellor of the Federal Republic in the 1980s and 1990s] for Soviet troops to leave East Germany, thus enabling German reunification, and this against the promise – never kept by the West! – that there would be no expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe.

Gorbachev later made a single exception: he authorised NATO expansion only into the territory of the whole of reunified Germany, provided that no atomic weapons were stationed in the eastern part of it…

But now let’s talk about the geostrategic implications – demographic, economic – of this opening to the east, i.e., the end of the so-called “Iron Curtain”. We quickly realised that, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, there would be a huge migration of labour from east to west, of people who wanted more money or better living or working conditions; and, at the same time, a massive migration of financial and economic resources from western European capitalism to eastern Europe. Eastern Europe had cheaper labour, Western firms bought the factories and infrastructure of Eastern countries, invested in them, but also wanted total control over them.

In East Germany, which assimilated and integrated 100 per cent into West Germany, this process of integration was faster and easier – but also more painful for the people affected; in the other Eastern European countries, as they had retained their independence, capitalist integration was slower, but also less painful, as these countries always retained a certain decision-making power and therefore a certain control over what happened.

My question is: did the people Carlos met in Eastern Europe realise that they were being subjected to these two great “earthquakes”, migratory and economic, or were they more concerned with their day-to-day lives, their survival, or even enjoying the new freedoms they had won?

The aspect of freedom is very important. I don’t think people had any idea of the Tectonic movements that would follow. They were more concerned with their day-to-day lives and immediate things, of course. Only politicians could have a vision of the processes and their possible consequences. But at the level of the ordinary citizen, more importance was attached to freedom of expression, to political independence finally being regained, to concerns about well-being, about what you could and couldn’t buy.

There has always been a great fascination with consumption, just think of the old image of the inhabitants of the East with their faces pressed up against the shop window in the West… This fascination still exists today, and this is what drives certain political cycles, for example in Moldova, Georgia, etc. This idea, sometimes exaggerated, of Western well-being and the seduction it exerts. This well-being is not as dazzling as they think in some cases, it is almost always harder to achieve than it seems at first glance.

Ongoing de-globalisation, a new world order

That’s what’s happening now in East Germany. More than 30 years after reunification, many people are disillusioned with their experiences, because the promises of the West have often not been fulfilled.

But let’s look at what came 20 years later: that opening to the East has since spread to other countries, this time in Asia, such as China or India. We’re now at a later stage, where cheap labour is now being sought in China or India, and investments are also beginning to move more towards Asia. So, there has been a clear expansion of globalisation. But – and this is something that really intrigues me! -after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, everything seems to have gone back a bit: the expansion of globalisation is coming to an end, or at least shrinking, there is a contraction in global trade, de-globalisation and even a certain need for re-industrialisation on the part of the rich countries (in the case of the USA, for example). At the same time, new blocs and a new cold war are being created. All over the world, we are seeing an upsurge in nationalism, for example through boycotts against other countries, protectionism, or the weakening of international organisations: Russia has been thrown out of the G8, the United Nations is losing its importance, the European Union is divided and partly paralysed… What has happened with the war in Ukraine, what is behind all this that explains this major turning point?

Are we, as many Western media claim, in a struggle between democracies and dictatorships, or is it all the fault of Trump who, as president, has started trade and financial wars against China and Europe? What do you think?

Well, that’s a very global question, I’ve never distinguished myself by being an analyst of international politics, I am – I was – above all a reporter and journalist. With such a broad question, you’re giving me credit that I don’t have. I can only repeat a few platitudes here, for example about US concern in particular – and Western concern in general – that China’s power may represent a curtailment, a retraction of Western power and interests, and ultimately concern about the distribution of the world, that is, how it will be distributed from now on – and who will control what. That’s what drives politics.

You mentioned the retreat of globalisation and the re-emergence of nationalist sentiments. I think that’s logical, as it has become clear that globalisation responds more to the interests of international financial capital, without taking national traditions and interests into account. It is therefore only natural that this globalist movement that began in the 90s should be curbed. And what we will probably see is the formation of groupings that will call into question the international order that resulted from World War II, including its main institutions, from the UN to the World Health Organisation, the International Criminal Court, etc. All of these institutions are characterised by a very pro-Western slant. And with the re-emergence of the national interests of other major powers such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Venezuela… it is only natural that there should be a review of the entire world order that has been in place until now: issues of trade and the laws governing international trade, the long-overdue review of the United Nations Security Council itself. So, a lot of water has flown under the bridge here since the Second World War. And with the experience, in many ways negative, of the globalisation of the 1990s, as well as the emergence of new powers, it’s only natural that this international order tends to be questioned. Let’s see how things shape up… but what is certain is that things are moving!

What do you think of the BRICS bloc? Will they be able to make a valid contribution to a new, fairer world order?

This is still an open question, it’s all very early days. One thing we haven’t touched on yet is the role of the dollar. If large countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, which are demographically and territorially very important, and also others like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, which have large oil reserves, question the role of the dollar in trade, it’s only natural that this global order will also be questioned and that new rules may emerge. The BRICS group is still more of a promise than a reality, but its trend is towards enlargement and, eventually, consolidation. I don’t know how the BRICS will interact with the G20, which is now the G21: what will their interconnection be like in the future, what will remain for some and what for others? In short, I think we’ve already embarked on a series of changes that are underway, but whose final outcome is still unknown.

But we seem to be witnessing, in any case, the retreat of the US empire and its capacity to intervene – what happened (and is still happening) in Syria is revealing: it was not possible for the West, and in part the US, to bring about the change they wanted to make in Syria. That change was aborted. And that’s a sign. The decline of the dollar as a currency in international trade is also another indication of trends that are already underway. We don’t yet know how quickly and how profoundly we will see these changes, but the movement has already begun.

And we haven’t even mentioned environmental issues. We are on the brink of an abyss, a “point of no return” with regard to global warming, but the world seems to be concerned only with wars between itself, with gaining areas of influence, with forming blocs, but not blocs to protect nature and people, but only the interests of a few countries or economic groups.

Yes, but on the other hand there is also some scientific uncertainty, which somewhat limits the possibilities for change in this area. Sometimes science is seen as nothing more than an ideology. Although progress is being made, at the same time a series of meetings are being held that lead to nothing and only serve to get a few hundred “habitués” to meet here and there around the world, without bringing any significant progress.

Having lived through the end of the Soviet Union as a journalist, we are now experiencing the non-realisation of the enormous hopes that were raised at that time.

It was precisely at that time that there was the idea that the “Cold War” would end, that the global confrontation between blocs would end, that a new era would be possible in which people would understand each other better in order to resolve the issues that have been of real concern to humanity for so long, such as hunger, climate change, and all with fewer confrontations and fewer wars, less waste. We are experiencing great disenchantment. Will it ever be possible to overcome it? We’re always between here and there. In general, people don’t get together to make great positive efforts before a tragedy: first the tragedy, then the fight against the consequences. And then tragedy again: there seems to be a tragic destiny in our human condition!

Do you know the positions of Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., who is now a candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2024? He says that, if elected, he will end US wars and dissolve the US military empire from within, investing only in the country’s development and in peace and equality between peoples.

Yes, with this programme he is a candidate to meet the fate of his uncle [John Fitzgerald Kennedy, US president, and his father, Robert Francis Kennedy, both assassinated in the 1960s].

The danger from internal forces, particularly the US military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned the world about at the end of his term, is real: these forces are very powerful and dominant. The so-called “deep state” that controls the United States of America is very powerful, and in fact, given the current international circumstances, I don’t immediately see any possibility of a more peaceful evolution that is more in line with the real interests of humanity. For that to happen, there would have to be a profound change within the US itself. When this will happen, if ever, is unknown.

The decline of US imperialism that we are witnessing explains many of today’s evils and contradictions…

What we can say about this – as Mark Twain said about the rumours of his death – is that the news about the death of the American empire “is somewhat exaggerated”!

The American empire, its strength and capacity for intervention, its physical presence through hundreds of military bases all over the world, men, influence, wealth, means of intervention and – the last but not the least – in terms of satellite networks and means of media influence, is still enormous.

Carlos, you had a rather pessimistic final word, but hope is not dead yet. And we will continue to fight for a better, more humane world.

Hope, as we know, is the last to die. The problem is that our fight for a better world, just as with communism, is – unfortunately too! – tainted by enormous crimes. The communists also came with these promises: peace, development, fraternity. And we haven’t got beyond the general slogans of the French Revolution: “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”: we do have freedom, at least in part, although today it is very much under control.

Nor have we talked about the media, the extraordinary power that the media have – and which nobody controls. All the attempts to review this power, since UNESCO’s famous McBride Report in the 1980s, sponsored by the United Nations, have yet to bring about any change in this area, and the power of the media has become stronger and stronger. After that report, the US pulled out of UNESCO, boycotted it completely, and everything “remained in cold waters” to this day! That report already denounced the extraordinary power of a handful of news agencies that control all information. And whoever controls information controls the world. And these agencies are always the same, some dating back to the 18th or 19th century: Reuters, France Press, etc. And the newspapers, the big radio and television networks, some of them global, controlled by a handful of big tycoons. They are the ones who “make the rain and the good weather”, as the French say. They’re the ones who always give the message of what’s being discussed, what’s worth talking about. Journalism doesn’t do that job these days, even though it has the means to do so: who in the newsroom goes against the agenda that has already been set by the big agencies? Who makes the effort to look for other topics? All of this would be technically possible, but there are few who make the effort, or they are very occasional efforts, there is no systematic work. The McBride report already questioned these agencies in the 1980s, which are the same as always.

And the left is also marked by crime, that’s the problem: the Gulag, the murder of Trotsky, etc.

That’s what’s happening in Germany: it’s come directly from Hitler’s Nazism to a Soviet-style communism (in the case of East Germany, formerly the German Democratic Republic), and therefore to a new dictatorship. That’s why they are now “burnt out”, both on the right and on the left, and don’t know where they should go.

And where is the Peace Movement today that ended the Vietnam War? Where is it today to end the war in Ukraine? Nobody is raising the banner of peace!

In Germany, the Peace Movement in the 1960s and 80s was mainly associated with the youth revolt and with those who are now part of the Green Party, which was also against atomic energy and nuclear weapons…

… and which is now led by that girl, Germany’s foreign minister [Annalena Baerbock], who is far too bellicose …

Yes, now the leaders of the Green party in Germany are mostly in favour of supplying Ukraine with increasingly lethal weapons to fight Russia. They no longer have a pacifist position, not even to demand negotiations! Or at least staying neutral and putting pressure on the conflicting groups to “stop it!”

Thank you very much, Carlos, for this interview!

I’m grateful for the thought and the interest.

(*) Carlos Fino

1948: Born in Lisbon, but lives and grows up in Alto-Alentejo (Portugal).

1967: Studies law in Lisbon, is a student leader and member of the PCP in the underground, and as such is persecuted by PIDE, the fascism’s political police.

1971: He crosses the border “by jumping” (illegally) to Paris, and from there to Brussels, where he obtains United Nations refugee status.

1973: Moves to the Soviet Union, where he works as an announcer for Radio Moscow in Portugal and Portuguese-speaking Africa.

1974: At the end of the year, following the Carnation Revolution, he returns to Portugal and works for various newspapers and the former Emissora Nacional (EN).

1975: At the end of the year, he returns to Moscow, but this time as an international correspondent for EN and, later, for Rádio Televisão Portuguesa (RTP).

1982-1989: Works for RTP in Lisbon as a reporter, presenter and commentator.

1989-1995: Back in Moscow, covering as a journalist the break-up of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of Eastern Europe: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the GDR, Poland and Hungary, as well as the conflicts in Abkhazia, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Moldova, Chechnya and Afghanistan.

1995- 1998: RTP correspondent in Brussels.

1998-2000 – RTP correspondent in Washington.

2000-2004: Covers various wars and conflicts: Albania, Palestine, Afghanistan, and also the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by American troops, being the first reporter in the world to broadcast live images of the start of the American bombing of Baghdad.

2003: Publishes the book “A Guerra em Directo”, published by Verbo.

2004-2012: Works in diplomacy as Press Counsellor at the Portuguese Embassy in Brazil during President Lula da Silva’s first two terms in office.

2013: Retires and remains in Brazil.

2019: PhD in “Communication Sciences” from the University of Minho in Braga with a thesis that served as the basis for his new book “Portugal-Brazil: Roots of Strangeness” published in 2021.

2022: He returns to Portugal and “his” Alto Alentejo.

Throughout his career as a journalist, Carlos Fino has received numerous national and international awards and honours. He has around 37,000 followers on Facebook, a growing trend.

More information about the interviewee here (in the Portuguese language):

See here the first part of PRESSENZA’s interview with Carlos Fino, about his experiences in Moscow and during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the forced break-up of Yugoslavia.

PRESSENZA has also published a video interview in Portuguese with Carlos Fino by UTAD TV, which you can watch here.

All content produced by Pressenza is available free of charge under the terms of the Creative Commons 4.0 Licence.