Brazilian Liberal Media has made some claims that the Lula Government will be against the inclusion of Venezuela into BRICS. Considering that all joinings require a consensus on the part of member countries, this would be a spanner in the works. I don't know if this is true or not, but it doesn't actually strike me as surprising. The Brazilian Government has a difficult relationship with Venezuela since Cháves.

On the one hand, there's the electoral issue. We are marching towards the second round of the municipal elections and any support for Venezuela galvanizes the right and the far right which are the majority of the country.

But on the other we do have the leaked CIA cables from way back when that claimed Lula had a difficult personal relationship with Hugo Cháves. Behind closed doors, the Venezuelan Government was considered difficult to influence or pin down, and a difficult partner to be had. What some might claim is a sign of sovereignty, others in the Brazilian side would say is a difficulty in cooperating in a time of american hegemony. As such, Brazil's government feels a bit miffed with the way their brokered deals during the electoral crisis in Venezuela were more or less discarded.

I guess we'll see the truth of things when during the next couple of days.

interestingly, it seems that the referendum was polarized between every border region and chisinau. young people hoping they'll work for a few more pennies if they unify with romania?

you severely overestimate his price point

excuse me, liberals would support this because of their spirit of bipartisanship

tfw pedo coded irl

it was at this moment

that donald trump became presidential

The Biden team told Kamala's team that the 'weird thing' is too negative and they had to drop it. So they did. Now only positive things are allowed, like the 'brat thing' and not talking about price gouging. The Kamala team better listen to Biden's because, you know, Biden is still president and megalomaniacal people who go into politics are in fact petty as fuck and have real power.

the funniest thing about francis is that he's occasionally slightly to the left of and that's enough to send these tourist converts into an apoplexy

'the gay agenda is still sinful but you know the church is for the sinful. also no condoms!'

'NOOO the pope has gone woke!'

I try not to put much stock in what these “online trad convert” types think tho.

you really shouldn't. its like asking a sex pest tourist what they think of your hometown.

i don't think they are even real at this point. the poster says something about naughty dog not liking dominant males. every single response claims thats insane but they have +200 upvotes anyways.

so you're saying trump can displace the totally alive 145 yo kennedy and become the truest imam

I think John would disagree that they are as realist as him

Of course he would. And my whole point is that he's wrong. Moreover, his own arguments prove that he's wrong.

John constantly says that American Primacy can only be maintained by preventing the appearance of regional hegemons. He also claims that had he been in charge in China or elsewhere, his first priority would be to see to it that these countries become regional hegemons as quickly as possible. Ergo, from the point of view of american security, the United States is, at best, in a Cold War against every potential regional hegemon. This means every member of the BRICS, as well as the EU.

It doesn't matter that John claims Russia should have been integrated into the american alliance. His disagreement there is not about the fundamental nature of international relations. But one of chronology. Let's destroy China first and foremost. That's it.

It also doesn't matter that John claims Russia should be treated as a legitimate power with its own legitimate interests. His fundamentally realist worldview is defined by how that cannot, ever, be the case. The moment Russia, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Turkey and so on are treated as legitimate powers with their own legitimate interests is the moment the US is at war with not one potential regional hegemon but 5 or 6.

Many analysts have pointed out that Ukraine aside the greatest loser of the war is the EU. The larger picture only confirms this fact. American foreign policy has successfully contained the EU. Every regional partnership weaved by EU politicians has either gone nowhere or ended up in an American War of Aggression against the european's partners. Iraq, Iran, Libya and so on. That is another area where John is just coping. In but 20 years a continental union larger than the US was reduced from an alternative to a basketcase. This is success from John's own perspective and wouldn't have happened if Russia was an EU and NATO member.

To nail that coffin, John also claims that Israel's actions are not in America's interests. Which is absurd. Israel's actions are against the american people's will, but they are most certainly in the US's interests. As defined by John, it being preventive action against all regional hegemons. In this case the EU, Turkey, Iran and even Russia.

That's the problem with John. He presents himself a just a rational and reasonable realist. In reality he's an american supremacist. His belief in american exceptionalism is the primary driver of his policy recommendations, not his theory.

I've said it before, but as much as Mearsheimer claims that realism doesn't really have a voice in the halls of power what he means is realism like his. He approaches that truth when he claims that america's actions during the unipolar moment was merely enshrouded in a mist of liberalism. But the truth of the matter is that Biden, Nuland, et al are as realist as John when they feel the need to take on Russia and China at the same time. And it is John who's the naive fool who thinks that you can ally Russia against China. Especially at this juncture.

American primacy can only be maintained by a war against all. I doubt that John is really in denial about this. But as a true believer, he has to at least pretend.

This reads like an australian farming statements to create an alternate reality. Of course there's an academic in China who's predicting a Russian loss in Ukraine. How many academics are there in China? Some of them are bound to be insanely ill informed. That to me is emblematic of how useful the article is.

'Chinese officials clarified that Beijing does not seek a formal military alliance with Russia' means much less than it seems given that context. Russia is China's source of materiel. Russia is China's access to the north sea routes. It won't be discarded in any way, shape or form because it is an imperative to China's export oriented model.

Neither must Russia compete with the west as a consumer market. First because it can't, its a small population. Second because the west is closing itself off. Not the other way around. China's bet there is a medium term growth across the entire south.

why is the top of the beer bottle its own beer compartment

are you sure

the bit is believing that the same 7 european countries + USA and Canada - who spent the last 20 years killing millions upon millions of muslims across the world - are totally concerned about the lives of the few muslims they cannot bomb into submission. ie those in sovereign countries like China.

the punchline is the notion that every muslim country except NATO member Turkey has been bought off by an evil chinese conspiracy to also deny the uyghur genocide.

the PS.: is that those same countries who are totally concerned about Uyghurs are now conducting an actual genocide in Palestine.

it was a joke that brazil would get nuclear subs before australia because it was kinda true (big headstart) but now its insanely true

nothing in brazilian media so far so maybe the country is facing a fourway civil war and we'll talk about it tomorrow

generally in my experience is someone midst a super hero entrance, arriving to fight the woke