The Fall of Brazil’s Tyrannical Judge May Be Imminent: Moraes and His Sleaze Are Exposed
By Glenn Greenwald | September 4, 2026
Alexandre de Moraes spent months denying corrupt profits from a collapsed bank. The proof is now overwhelming, and his desperate moves to survive may imperil Lula’s re-election and Brazil’s democracy.
Exactly one month before Brazil holds its presidential election, the country is drowning in a corruption scandal and institutional civil war, the gravity of which is impossible to overstate. At the center of it is Brazil’s authoritarian and increasingly unhinged Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who was sanctioned by the U.S. as a human rights abuser in 2025 after he banned X from Brazil for one month over its refusal to censor at his behest, then ordered money removed from Starlink’s accounts to pay for X’s fines.
While polls all year have shown that the incumbent left-wing president, 80-year-old Lula da Silva, has a modest lead to win his fourth term, more recent polls have shown him tied with his primary adversary, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, now imprisoned for 28 years by Judge Moraes on charges of plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election to Lula.
Despite once being affiliated with the center-right, Moraes has become Lula’s closest and most important ally, and the left’s most beloved hero. For that reason, Moraes’ exploding scandal can only further weaken Lula heading into the election. Other than Uruguay, Brazil is the last country in South America still governed by a left-wing or center-left government, with one country after another electing leaders on the right: Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, etc.
Moraes’ conduct is so unprecedentedly sleazy and corrupt that it is difficult to report without provoking understandable doubt. How could it be possible that a democratic country is tolerating, for even one day, a Supreme Court judge remaining in power if his personal corruption and grave abuses of power are really this manifest? Over the past 48 hours, Brazil’s leading newspapers, previously virtually unanimous in their support of Moraes, have demanded his immediate resignation.
At the center of the scandal is a collapsed, fraudulent bank called Banco Master. In 2025, the Central Bank ordered its liquidation after it was revealed to be essentially a Ponzi scheme funding the libertine, Dubai- and Miami-based billionaire lifestyle of its Brazilian president, Daniel Vorcaro. It quickly became the worst banking loss in Brazil’s history by far, with estimated losses of at least $40 billion. Vorcaro was arrested last November at São Paulo’s international airport as he tried to board his private jet to Dubai to flee justice.
The bank’s collapse, Vorcaro’s arrest, and the ensuing criminal investigation have produced a tsunami of evidence showing how Vorcaro — as he was stealing from depositors, including retirees and civil servants — was secretly shoveling huge sums of money and other assets of value to Brazil’s leading politicians and judges, on both the left and right, with the expectation of protection. One of those most enriched by Banco Master is Lula’s longtime Workers’ Party ally in the Senate, Jaques Wagner; Vorcaro also furnished large sums to the Bolsonaro family, including to Flavio, nominally to finance a film about the former president.
But nobody has been as enriched — or as implicated — by Vorcaro and Banco Master as Justice Moraes. Late last year, Brazil’s Globo media empire — for years Moraes’ loyal supporter — revealed that the bank had given an undisclosed 18-month contract to Moraes’ wife worth $27 million.
While Moraes’ wife is an attorney, and the obscene sums under the contract were for “legal services,” she is an ordinary and mediocre one at best. Even Brazil’s best and largest law firms said that such a sum would be unthinkable for vague “legal services,” let alone that kind of generational wealth paid to the small family law firm composed of Moraes’ wife and their two lawyer children. In other words, there would be no rational reason why this bank would enter into such a lavish multi-million dollar contract with Moraes’ wife absent an agreement to secure the influence and protection of her very powerful husband.
More incriminating revelations about Moraes came fast and furious in the first two months of the year. He called the Central Bank to intervene on behalf of the corrupt bank that had just bestowed on him generational wealth. He and Vorcaro were communicating with each other in the days leading up to Vorcaro’s arrest. At least $17 million had been paid by the bank to Moraes’ wife under the original contract. Facing intense public pressure, she could not provide any documentation or explanation of what “legal services” she furnished that would remotely justify this bizarre contract.
In the face of all these media reports, Moraes denied essentially everything. Even though Globo had the text messages between him and Vorcaro, verified by the Federal Police, he simply lied and said they were not on his phone. That had the effect of somewhat stifling the scandal — until this week, when it exploded in a way that few scandals have.
When the Banco Master criminal case first arrived at the Supreme Court, it was conveniently assigned to a judge who had as much incentive as Moraes to hide it all. That judge immediately put the entire case under “absolute secrecy,” meaning nothing would be disclosed to the public. But when it was revealed that this judge and his family had their own massive, hidden financial ties to Vorcaro and the bank, he was forced to step aside, and the case was then randomly reassigned to Justice André Mendonça, one of only two judges on the 11-member court appointed by Bolsonaro.
Last week, Vorcaro told Mendonça that he was being physically and psychologically tortured in prison and threatened with death at the hands of the Lula-appointed head of the Federal Police. Mendonça thus ordered the Federal Police to turn over to him the results of their investigation into Vorcaro’s communications with anyone on the Supreme Court or Federal Police. On Monday, key excerpts of the 218-page report on Moraes’ genuinely shocking behavior, and then the full report itself, were disclosed by the daily newspaper Estadão.
Among the revelations: the wealth lavished on the Moraes family by Vorcaro was not limited to a $27 million contract, but also included a separate $10 million contract for his wife, free use of Vorcaro’s private jets and helicopters, and even credit cards for each of their children with a monthly limit of $70,000, with a total value of close to $40 million. Over the last two years, the Moraes family has acquired a virtual real estate empire, including a new $3.5 million mansion in the nation’s capital, Brasília, as well as other residences.
Just as one would expect, the generational wealth bestowed on the Moraes family from Vorcaro and the bank’s stolen deposits was not for free. Moraes was expected to do a great deal for the corrupt billionaire, and he did.
When conversing via WhatsApp, Moraes and Vorcaro both sent their messages using the app’s “one-time visualization” feature to ensure that their messages would be destroyed after they were read once. In several cases over which he presided, Moraes himself has classified the use of this feature as intentional obstruction of justice when he cited it to justify sending people to prison before trial.
Unfortunately for Moraes, the Federal Police were able to recover Vorcaro’s deleted messages to him (but not yet Moraes’ texts to Vorcaro, because they have not yet seized Moraes’ phone). Those recovered deleted messages show Vorcaro speaking extensively with Moraes about how he could escape and/or block prosecution, including asking Moraes about which dates he should flee the country to avoid imminent arrest, along with extensive discussions about Moraes’ efforts to have the chief prosecutor and the head of the Federal Police block criminal investigations. In several messages, Vorcaro proclaimed himself to be “in debt for life” to Moraes and with “life-long gratitude” to the judge for everything he did for him.
And, of course, Vorcaro appeared to have known exactly when the police were coming for him since they arrested him at the airport as he tried to flee to Dubai. Just two weeks ago, Moraes, along with the rest of the Supreme Court, ordered two Rio de Janeiro politicians indicted and arrested for having allegedly leaked details of an imminent police operation in advance to arrest criminals with whom they are associated.
Some of Moraes’ efforts to reward Vorcaro and the bank for the generational wealth bestowed on his family were out in the open. In one case highlighted by CNN Brasil, Moraes used his power as a Supreme Court judge to pause a criminal case against the bank that threatened its value, doing so shortly after the bank signed the $27 million contract with Moraes’ wife.
With these facts confirmed, this is about as clear-cut a case of proven abuse of power and massive corruption as one can imagine. On top of all of that, this shows that Moraes lied constantly to the public when denying these interactions when they were first reported: a rather significant finding given that he has been censoring and even imprisoning political enemies of Lula’s government and his own critics for years by accusing them of spreading “fake news.”
But one does not acquire and exercise authoritarian power for years without a network of powerful enablers and an entrenched tyrannical mindset that believes any criticism, questioning, or challenge of his power is, by definition, criminal. And Moraes, as he has done for years, is now insisting that the real criminal is not himself but the person who caused his conduct to be revealed to the public: in this case, his own colleague on the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, Moraes issued an order essentially putting Judge Mendonça under criminal investigation for “abuse of power.” Moraes’ allies in the Brazilian Senate, controlled by its Moraes-allied president, have long blocked impeachment attempts against Moraes but are now insisting that Judge Mendonça should be impeached for bringing to light this extraordinary wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, Lula — desperate to distance himself from the incomparable sleaze of his closest judicial ally, but also afraid of what they will do to him if he publicly sides against them — has been left to read incoherent and painfully vague statements from a teleprompter filled with meaningless bromides about how nobody is above the law. One strong weapon of leverage Moraes and his allies hold over Lula’s head is that Lula’s son is enmeshed in an extremely serious corruption scandal involving his alleged trading of influence for lobbyist profit, which Lula’s party is desperately trying to suppress until after the election.
What has happened here is a lesson for all Western democracies. The Brazilian establishment purposely vested Moraes with unlimited and unconstitutional powers in the name of “saving democracy” from Bolsonaro. They watched for years, with some growing discomfort, as Moraes went further and further in his authoritarian zeal. They assumed — or at least hoped — that once the Bolsonaro movement was smashed and prevented from contesting future elections, Moraes would then voluntarily return those powers and everything would return to normal.
But anyone with an even fleeting knowledge of history, or human nature, would have known that this would not have happened. Many of us spent years warning that these “emergency powers” would become permanent, citing the model of post-9/11 “emergency powers” in the U.S. that are now permanent. But all to no avail: Moraes was too valuable to try to rein him in any way.
So, now, the establishment forces in media and politics that created this tyrannical Frankenstein are trying to do everything possible to constrain their monster. But in many ways, he has become far more powerful than his creators. He is also clearly inebriated with his own power and righteousness, making him willing to do literally anything to preserve it and ensure his survival. All of this is leaving the outcome of this remarkable scandal, the ensuing constitutional crisis, and even Brazilian democracy itself very much in doubt.
Three other points:
(1) As noted, polls in Brazil basically now show a tie between Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro in the expected run-off election between the two. Kalshi has begun to reflect the rapidly changing expectations;
(2) I was on Piers Morgan’s program this week to discuss a wide range of issues, including the Iran War. You can watch that here.
(3) We conducted our live weekly Q&A last night, as we always (or almost always) do on Thursday night, where we respond to and interact with the questions, comments, and critiques of our subscribers. You can watch that here.
The cult of Fauci cult shows no signs of cooling down
By Bruna Frascolla | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 26, 2026
There is a vast difference between believing in witches and embarking on a witch hunt. While belief in witches likely prevailed throughout most of human history, mass hysteria driving a hunt for them is rare. The case of wokeness points to a similar dynamic: since the 1960s, U.S. institutions have propagated a conspiratorial sociology and a Manichaean anthropology worldwide, positing that Christendom, across all eras, has been inherently hostile toward women, blacks and gays. Yet, it was only in the 2010s, spurred by social media, that a significant segment of society began looking for racists under the bed and denouncing them everywhere. The onset of this hysteria coincided with the Euromaidan protests (2014), and represented the U.S. as a beacon of freedom standing against oppression. Moscow, the traditional villain, ceased to be viewed as communist and came to be seen as homophobic.
Recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tried to suggest that the “woke” phenomenon was merely a pandemic-induced delusion. While that isn’t strictly true, the lie gains traction because people were indeed not their usual selves during the pandemic, and wokeness was in full swing. I would venture to identify the George Floyd protests—which emerged in the U.S. in 2020 and were almost instantly replicated across Western Europe—as the peak of this pandemic-era delirium. There was even an attempt to stage a Brazilian version in São Paulo, led by soccer fan groups claiming to fight for democracy (this was during the Bolsonaro administration, which the most radical woke adherents viewed as a dictatorship). I single this out as the height of the madness because the press had spent the preceding months practically branding anyone who dared step outside a murderer, yet suddenly, taking to the streets to form a mob and topple “racist” statues was treated almost as a civic duty. Schools and churches were shut down because they caused “crowding,” yet gathering in crowds to vandalize the city was given the green light. Woke pedagogy and religion were the only forms of expression permitted in the public square.
The George Floyd protests also help clarify one thing: during the pandemic, traditional media acted as the catalyst for mass hysteria. While mainstream media certainly embraced wokeness, it is widely acknowledged that the driving force behind this hysteria was social media—specifically Facebook and Twitter. Traditional media generally followed suit rather than taking the lead: TV networks would have anchors spout politically correct platitudes while discussing the news or feature black women or Asian gays in prominent roles, but they were not the ones instigating cancel culture campaigns. As far as I recall, it was only during the pandemic that traditional media began actively inciting “woke” demonstrations, thereby assuming a position of genuine leadership. The Black Lives Matter organization lacked CNN’s mobilizing power; in Brazil, the Corinthians fan base lacked Globo’s reach.
The segments of the population led by traditional media differ from those led by social media influencers. The former group is much larger, considerably older, and far less politicized. Yet, during the pandemic, the two groups converged, moving in the same direction.
The discovery of Fauci’s diary compels us to revisit that period in history. Fauci kept an online diary on a government server, where he recorded his impressions of press coverage, his personal feelings, and so on. No hacking was required to uncover this information; one simply had to consult U.S. government servers, where Fauci’s emails and messages were also stored. Currently, there is a U.S. Senate investigation into this individual’s conduct during the pandemic, and this inquiry has uncovered matters of the utmost gravity. For instance, Fauci was privately warned that the experimental COVID “vaccines” could cause miscarriages, yet publicly he insisted they posed no risk and should be taken by pregnant women. As someone who is not a doctor, I take pride in having spoken out in 2021 against the propaganda made by YouTube for pregnant women, which offered them unrealistic assurances of safety. Time has proven me right, yet any expectation of a mea culpa is in vain.
One of the few topics from the Senate committee investigations that the mainstream media has touched upon is the laboratory origin of the coronavirus. So-called “conspiracy theorists” had long known that Fauci funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan; however, only now—with the release of correspondence revealing Fauci’s efforts to enforce the “bat soup” narrative—has the mainstream media begun to feign surprise at the subject. The U.S. creating biological weapons in overseas labs? Never! That would be conspiracy theory territory; instead, call it “gain-of-function research”, where selfless scientists simply play the role of nature by creating new, lethal viruses, all to discover a vaccine in advance, for the good of humanity.
When I was a child, there was enough medical information available to know that the flu vaccine was always lagging behind, because the flu virus is constantly mutating—yet now I am expected to believe that gain-of-function research offers a realistic prospect of anticipating the wildest viruses nature would have cooked up anyway. God forbid we believe Russia’s allegations regarding biolabs in Ukraine! Or rather, God forbid we even become aware of them!
Ever since the emergence of these hastily developed, mandatory vaccines, it became clear to me that there was a geopolitical divide far more significant than the one between Right and Left. In Brazil, for instance, skepticism became associated with the Bolsonarist Right, whereas the Left embraced the Democrats’ narrative en masse. Yet, I observed that Cuba and Venezuela were using chloroquine. Where Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are present, U.S. influence prevails; where such vaccines are absent—and where seeking off-label treatments is not taboo—U.S. influence does not prevail.
Commenting on the latest news regarding Fauci, a rare article published by Opera Mundi (one of the few Brazilian leftist outlets sympathetic to Chavismo) stated: “The controversy surrounding biolabs became one of the most intense political debates in the U.S. during the pandemic. The ‘bat theory’ was automatically linked to Democratic progressivism, while any mention of biolabs was dismissed as yet another piece of Trumpist fake news. Since then, the goal has no longer been to uncover the truth, but to stake out a position against the opposing camp. In Brazil, this importation of ‘ideas out of place’ was even more clumsy than Roberto Schwarz could have imagined. We didn’t even copy the new phase of the controversy; we preferred to pretend nothing happened.”
This is the state of affairs in Brazil: if it didn’t air on Jornal Nacional, it didn’t happen; it’s all just fake news from crude right-wingers. A state investigation by the world’s greatest power, conducted by representatives of the people—that simply didn’t happen. As a large, monolingual country that does not, in practice, require its middle class to know English, Brazil is susceptible to this dynamic.
Take, for instance, the day I tried to show a doctor that I was right and she was wrong regarding COVID vaccines. I was astonished to find her literally offended because I shared news reports that contradicted her beliefs; she invoked the argument of freedom of conscience—typical of religious warfare—when, in reality, the issue involved simple factual matters that should be verifiable by atheists and believers of all stripes alike. A lack of broader knowledge made any English-language website suspect—even the New York Post, founded by Alexander Hamilton. The doctor in question, as is common among her social class, opposes to Lula’s Party. The non-Bolsonarist Brazilian right is also staunchly pro-COVID vaccine (see the stances of former Governor Ronaldo Caiado and movement leader Renan Santos, both of whom run for presidency). This is a right-wing faction that adores the U.S., loathes Trump, and finds itself uncomfortable with shifting geopolitical realities.
If there is one thing that unites adherents of this right-wing faction with the left in general—especially the “woke” left—it is the conviction that they are more enlightened than the average person, standing on a plane far above the common rabble. In a sense, Trumpism in the U.S. and Bolsonarism in Brazil serve to create a straw man—the uncultured, utter ignoramus—against whom the conformist citizen, devoid of any particular virtue, can feel special simply by comparison. It is an ego crutch. I am not sure if this maps perfectly onto the New Right parties in Europe; given the vigorous prevalence of wokeness in the European Union, a conformist citizen need only label someone a fascist or a racist to feel superior to many of their fellow countrymen.
The years of pandemic mass hysteria have crystallized into a cult of Fauci followers whose self-worth hinges on their beliefs regarding the pandemic. These are people who believe that only what appears in the mainstream media is true; who think that without the arrival of the “vaccines,” COVID would still be highly lethal today (surely the Brazilian Indians invented the flu vaccine in the 16th century, thereby avoiding extinction); who believe that when they are afraid, it is right and necessary to sacrifice the lives of healthy young people, who notoriously would not have died from COVID, for the sake of their own emotional comfort (from the start of the pandemic, it was widely known that the elderly and the obese were the most vulnerable—yet, before the Ozempic fad, telling someone to lose weight was “fatphobia”). And later, once they have blood on their hands, having engaged in or legitimized a witch hunt against the unvaccinated and skeptics in general, they deem it right and necessary to uphold the lie so they can maintain that emotional comfort.
It is difficult to envision a solution for these people. Just as crack addicts will use every last cent to numb themselves, these conformists with inflated egos will use any pretext to cling to their own beliefs. This situation is all the more serious given the medical community’s widespread adherence to this creed. It means that many of our so-called doctors are nothing more than pharmaceutical propagandists, lacking the competence and critical judgment to act in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath.
The paradox of Brazilian defense: a comparative study with Iran
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 3, 2026
For decades, the debate over national defense in Brazil has been treated as a secondary issue. In a country with no significant border disputes and far removed from the world’s principal conflict zones, the prevailing perception has been that substantial military investments are unnecessary. The result of this mindset is an increasingly evident paradox: Brazil ranks among the countries with the largest military budgets in the world in absolute terms, yet it continues to display significant limitations in operational capabilities, strategic production, and deterrence.
Recently, I had access to a study prepared by Brazilian Navy Commander Robinson Farinazzo, based on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which highlights a striking reality. Between 2015 and 2024, Brazil accumulated approximately US$214 billion in military expenditures, while Iran spent roughly US$134 billion during the same period. In other words, Brazil invested about 60 percent more resources in defense than Iran over the past decade.
However, a simple comparison of spending figures reveals very little about the actual military capabilities of each country. Brazil allocates the overwhelming majority of its defense budget to maintaining its existing structure. Salaries, pensions, and administrative expenses consume most of the available resources, leaving relatively little room for research and development, procurement, weapons acquisition, and technological modernization. This model preserves a large and professional military force, but significantly limits the pace at which its operational capabilities can be renewed.
Iran, by contrast, has followed a fundamentally different approach. Despite decades of economic sanctions, financial isolation, and severe restrictions on importing military equipment, Tehran invested heavily in building a comprehensive domestic defense industrial base. Unable to rely on foreign suppliers, the country directed its resources toward the development of ballistic missiles, drones, air defense systems, and local weapons production. Ironically, the sanctions intended to undermine Iran’s strategic autonomy ended up encouraging a high degree of self-sufficiency across multiple sectors of its defense industry.
This divergence in priorities has become particularly relevant in today’s international environment. In an era characterized by growing competition among major powers, the ability to manufacture weapons domestically, sustain national industrial supply chains, and rapidly adapt military technologies has become just as important as the nominal size of a country’s defense budget. In this respect, Iran’s experience demonstrates that the efficiency with which resources are allocated can be as decisive as the total amount spent.
The contrast with Brazil is unavoidable. The country possesses a respectable defense industrial base responsible for projects such as the KC-390 military transport aircraft, the ASTROS rocket artillery system, the Guarani armored vehicle, and the PROSUB submarine program. Nevertheless, these achievements coexist with decades of inconsistent investment, recurring budget cuts, and the absence of a long-term state policy aimed at continuously strengthening Brazil’s defense industrial and technological capabilities.
Even more concerning is the fact that Brazil operates in a geopolitical environment that is incomparably less hostile than the one confronting Iran. While Tehran has spent decades under international sanctions, surrounded by regional adversaries and subjected to sustained external pressure, Brasília benefits from regional stability, abundant natural resources, and relatively broad access to international markets. Yet Brazil has failed to transform these favorable conditions into a coherent strategy for strengthening its deterrent capabilities.
The principal lesson from this comparison is not that Brazil should replicate the Iranian model, nor should it overlook the profound political, economic, and strategic differences between the two countries. The conclusion is far simpler: financial resources alone do not guarantee military power. Without long-term planning, sustained investment, a strengthened domestic defense industry, and priority given to research and technological innovation, even substantial defense budgets produce limited strategic results.
The world is entering a period of growing geopolitical instability. In this context, Brazil’s real challenge is not simply determining how much to spend on defense, but defining which capabilities it intends to develop over the coming decades. Otherwise, it will continue spending billions merely to sustain an existing structure that, while important, fails to meet the strategic requirements of a continental-sized nation with increasingly significant interests on the international stage.
Brazil approaches NATO and Israel to modernize its armed forces
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 2, 2026
In an unusual statement given the turbulent relations of recent years, Brazilian President Lula defended the rearmament and modernization of Brazil’s Armed Forces. According to him, Brazil must have strong armed forces, even if it does not intend to use them, but as deterrent forces to prevent direct interference from foreign powers in the country.
The statement took place at an event organized under the auspices of Avibras Aeroco, an important strategic company in the Brazilian defense sector. Avibras is best known for producing the Astros anti-aircraft systems, which are operated by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain, Angola, Indonesia, Malaysia and, naturally, Brazil itself. In addition to the Astros, Avibras also produces various types of armored personnel carriers and some other anti-aircraft equipment such as the SKYFIRE and the EDT-FILA. The company is also developing an anti-ship missile, a laser-guided missile, a fiber-optic guided missile, an air-to-air missile and an upgrade to the Astros.
Such a high level of activity on Avibras’s part is notable because the company only resumed its operations in May-June 2026, after more than 4 years of total operational standstill. Avibras’s problems began during the pandemic era (which leads us to reflect once again on the role of health crisis management in the deindustrialization of numerous countries and the destruction of their middle classes). While most relevant defense industry companies worldwide are subsidized or receive some type of government support, Brazil had been treating its companies in this sector as private enterprises like any other for decades. Thus, with reduced orders and the impossibility of travel, Avibras gradually became unable to pay its debts, salaries and cover its operational costs. In 2022, all activities are halted and a strike begins over more than 1 year of overdue wages.
Meanwhile, foreign companies (especially from Australia, Saudi Arabia and China) showed interest in acquiring Avibras, which could result in an uncomfortable and uninteresting situation, especially if Avibras were acquired by Australia.
A mobilization of patriotic sectors of Brazilian society, however, throughout this entire period, managed to exert enough pressure on the government to convince it of Avibras’s importance, leading to new contracts with the Armed Forces, a bankruptcy protection agreement and the end of the workers’ strike.
The Avibras case – which points to a renewal of interest in military affairs on the part of the Brazilian State – is not isolated, however.
Brazil’s military spending rose about 13% in 2025, but the country remained in 21st place globally – a ridiculous level given the country’s size and its international leadership aspirations. For 2026, a 6% increase was forecast, and at the end of 2025, approximately 6 billion extra dollars were also approved, due to budgetary limits for specific modernization projects.
The modernization projects in question fall within the logic of the Transformation Policy, a document built from observation of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine and recent conflicts in the Middle East. Based on this document, Brazil’s Armed Forces defined as part of their objectives the expansion of military drone use, the development of anti-drone systems, the national-level integration of sensor and radar systems and the expansion of cyber warfare capabilities.
Specifically, the project aimed at integrating and connecting military sensors, radars, satellites, aircraft and electronic systems is SISFRON (Integrated Border Monitoring System), which is set to receive approximately 600 million dollars. The drones used in this system will be from Israel’s Elbit.
Another program receiving historic attention from Brazil is Prosub, aimed at developing conventional submarines and nuclear-powered submarines, the result of a partnership with France dating back to 2008. Needless to say, for 14 years of cooperation this Brazil-France partnership has little to show so far, but there are promises that this year and next summer will see the delivery and launching of submarines.
The Brazilian Navy also expanded its fleet through the incorporation of a new frigate – to NATO standards – developed jointly by Brazil’s Embraer and Germany’s ThyssenKrupp.
The Air Force’s focus, in turn, is the Gripen Program, the result of a long-standing cooperation between Brazil and Sweden, which is only now yielding results. The Gripen fighters are assembled in Brazilian factories, and Brazil recently set aside a budget of approximately 400 million dollars for this program, which eventually envisions a fleet of 56 modern fighters.
There is also the recent formalization of a contract with the Italian CIO consortium for the acquisition of Centauro II armored vehicles, for use on Brazil’s borders, with a budget of approximately 1 billion dollars to acquire approximately 100 combat vehicles.
It is important to note that the fact that Brazil has understood the need to improve its Armed Forces is reassuring, and we imagine that the U.S. attack on Venezuela was one of the elements that reinforced this conviction and facilitated the acceleration of plans and the expansion of budgets.
It is also noteworthy that few of the projects and plans under development involve the U.S., which is peculiar considering the umbilical ties that exist between the U.S. Armed Forces and Brazil’s Armed Forces since World War II. Recently, the Commander of the Brazilian Navy, Marcos Olsen, reaffirmed the commitment to a doctrinal alignment of Brazil’s Armed Forces with the U.S. in an interview with CNN. But now, Brazil is preferring not to acquire its equipment or develop joint projects with the U.S., with the exception of the recent plan to acquire outdated (and used) Black Hawk helicopters.
It should also be noted that most of these partnerships developed by Brazil involve technology transfer, which is always of interest to Brazil and has guided Brasília’s international cooperation decisions. Agreements with the U.S. rarely involve technology transfer.
At the same time, however, it is striking that all the projects involve cooperation with NATO countries or their close allies, such as the State of Israel. Even with technology transfer, cooperation with countries like France and Israel raises concerns.
France is a country already notorious for handing over Argentine military secrets to its British allies during the Falklands War. Meanwhile, Israel has a history of placing backdoors in all electronic systems sold to foreign countries since the PROMIS case of the 1980s.
This is, then, clearly a crossroads situation in which the Brazilian government’s stance of not taking a geopolitical position and maintaining a certain “neutrality” facilitates the strengthening of ties with countries that are very clearly involved in international conflicts on the globalist and Atlanticist side of the equation.
Abelardo De la Espriella’s Victory Renews Pressure on Venezuela
José Niño Unfiltered | June 26, 2026
Colombia elected Abelardo de la Espriella as its next president on June 21, 2026, delivering the country’s leadership to a man who spent nearly a decade publicly calling for the violent overthrow of Venezuela’s socialist government. His victory over leftist Senator Iván Cepeda by fewer than 250,000 votes marks a dramatic rightward shift for a nation that shares a porous 1,400-mile border with Venezuela and hosts millions of Venezuelan refugees.
De la Espriella takes office on August 7, 2026. If Brazil’s November presidential election delivers Flávio Bolsonaro to the Planalto Palace, the two largest nations bordering Venezuela will be governed by leaders who have explicitly endorsed forceful regime change in Caracas. Combined with the apparent willingness of acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez to cooperate with Washington, the conditions may finally exist for completing what the Trump administration attempted and failed to accomplish in 2019.
De la Espriella’s hostility toward Caracas is neither recent nor cautious. He first articulated his position on Venezuela during a 2018 appearance on Peruvian TV personality Jaime Bayly’s Miami television program. According to to his own subsequent writings, he urged Venezuelans to commit tyrannicide against Nicolás Maduro. Days later he published a column titled “Death to the Tyrant” in Barranquilla’s El Heraldo, writing that “the death of Nicolás Maduro becomes necessary to guarantee the survival of the Republic.”
When U.S. forces captured Maduro in January 2026, de la Espriella publicly celebrated, claiming he had predicted it years earlier. He sold the American operation not as an “invasion” but as “the arrest of an international criminal and head of the Cartel de los Soles,” arguing that Washington acted according to the law due to Venezuela’s alleged lack of institutional legitimacy.
His campaign platform explicitly called for a renewed military alliance with Washington. In February, De la Espriella announced that he would immediately begin “bombing the camps of the narco-terrorists and spraying drug crops,” adding that “this cannot be done without a strategic alliance with the United States and the State of Israel.” He marketed this as a 90-day security plan modeled on Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s approach, promising to retake national territory through joint task forces, aerial bombardment of criminal camps, fumigation of 330,000 hectares of coca, and the construction of 10 mega-prisons in remote jungle locations. He has also promised to establish American military bases on Colombian territory as part of a comprehensive security restructuring.
Colombia may soon find a partner in this posture across its longest border. Five months after de la Espriella’s inauguration, Brazilians will decide their own presidential election. Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, has made Venezuela the centerpiece of his campaign against incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
When Maduro was kidnapped in January, Flávio immediately seized on the moment. He posted that “Venezuela has become one of the most extreme examples of how an authoritarian regime can destroy a nation,” calling Maduro a “narcoterrorist.” At the time, his brother Eduardo texted him saying “you are elected president, because we know that a lot of things will come out of Maduro,” predicting that Maduro’s capture would expose Lula’s ties to the Venezuelan regime.
At CPAC in March 2026, Flávio displayed a photograph of Lula embracing Maduro to a crowd that booed loudly. He accused Lula of maintaining ties with leftist dictatorships through the São Paulo Forum, which he described as a network linking Lula, Cuban communism, and drug cartels. Brazil’s Supreme Court opened an investigation into Flávio for defamation, which he denounced as political censorship.
Flávio took Lula to task for “publicly criticizing President Trump’s actions on Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and the fight against drug trafficking.” He pledged that under his presidency, Brazil would serve as a reliable U.S. partner rather than an opponent on these issues. Reuters polling in late October shows Flávio and Lula locked in a statistical tie heading into the October first round.
What these leaders propose is not new. Washington reached for it in 2019. The Trump administration’s first attempt to topple Maduro collapsed in spectacular fashion. National Security Adviser John Bolton appeared at a January 28, 2019 press conference at the White House with a notepad reading “5,000 troops to Colombia,” held visibly in front of cameras while announcing new oil sanctions against Venezuela’s state company PDVSA—signaling Washington’s interest in using Colombian territory as a staging ground for military pressure on Caracas. Colombia’s Foreign Minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo Garcia said his government had no knowledge of what the note meant.
On February 23, 2019, a U.S.-backed humanitarian aid plot from Cúcuta ended in violence when Venezuelan security forces blocked the convoy with tear gas and rubber bullets. According to a USAID Office of Inspector General report, only 8 of 368 metric tons of aid actually reached Venezuela—the rest was distributed inside Colombia or shipped to Somalia.
The failure at Cúcuta had a quieter companion in Brazil. The Brazilian military establishment proved decisive in blocking regional intervention. Vice President Hamilton Mourão, a retired general, stated flatly that “under no circumstances” would Brazil allow the U.S. to use its territory for military action against Venezuela. He emphasized that “nobody is betting on a military solution.”
Brazil’s Vice President Hamilton Mourão stated firmly that the United States could not use Brazilian territory to invade Venezuela. Senior Brazilian military figures similarly warned against being drawn into a conflict that could make their forces a buffer between American and Venezuelan troops. The military’s resistance held even as President Jair Bolsonaro gave ambiguous public signals, while gesturing toward all options, he acknowledged that the possibility of intervention was “near-zero.”
That said, what failed in 2019 may succeed in 2027 because Venezuela’s current leadership appears willing to cooperate with Washington in ways Maduro never would. A CIA authored classified assessment, reported by the Wall Street Journal, identified Delcy Rodríguez as the best suited candidate to lead a transitional government. Days after Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez was sworn in as acting president on January 5, 2026. On January 15, CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Caracas for a two-hour meeting with Rodríguez—the highest-ranking Trump administration official to visit Venezuela since Maduro’s removal—to deliver the message that “the United States looks forward to an improved working relationship.” The meeting came at the personal urging of President Donald Trump, who had spoken with Rodríguez by phone the previous day and called her “a terrific person,” writing on Truth Social that “we are making tremendous progress, as we help Venezuela stabilize and recover.”
The optics devastated hardline Chavistas. Mario Silva, host of the flagship pro-government propaganda program La Hojilla on state television VTV, accused Rodríguez of treason. In a May 2026 broadcast, he accused her inner circle of negotiating Venezuela’s future with Washington “behind the movement’s back.” He reportedly went further in a YouTube video, suggesting that Rodríguez was the only figure in the Venezuela government in touch with the CIA prior to January 3.
If such allegations prove to be true, smart money suggests Rodríguez would fold under sustained pressure from a multinational coalition. Trump has already removed her from DEA and OFAC sanctions lists despite the DEA having classified her as a “priority target” for drug trafficking as recently as 2022. She oversaw the deportation of diplomat Alex Saab directly to the United States after the Maduro government had fought for years to free him.
The Latin American Right has been ascendant for half a decade. Javier Milei in Argentina. Daniel Noboa in Ecuardo. José Antonio Kast in Chile. Now Abelardo de la Espriella in Colombia. If Flávio Bolsonaro wins Brazil’s November election, the two largest economies bordering Venezuela will both be governed by leaders who have explicitly endorsed American pressure campaigns against Caracas.
De la Espriella’s campaign pledged to restore the cooperative relationship with Washington that existed before Gustavo Petro. Flávio Bolsonaro has promised to align Brazil with U.S. pressure campaigns. With Rodríguez already meeting CIA directors in Caracas and following Washington’s orders on matters like Saab’s deportation, the path toward a final resolution of Venezuela’s political crisis may be shorter than anyone anticipated.
What Brazil’s generals blocked in 2019 may prove irrelevant in 2027 if Flávio Bolsonaro controls the presidency and appoints loyalists to military commands. What Colombia’s Ivan Duque hesitated to support may become explicit policy under de la Espriella. And what Maduro would never accept, Rodríguez appears willing to negotiate.
The question is no longer whether a multinational coalition will pressure Venezuela toward elections. The question is whether Rodríguez will call those elections voluntarily or wait until Colombian and Brazilian forces mass on her borders with American backing.
One thing is clear: the political crisis in Venezuela is far from over.
The new assault of the Zionist lobby in Brazil
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 14, 2026
The role of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. is so notorious that it has practically become contemporary folklore. Some European authors also emphasize the great influence that the Zionist lobby enjoys, primarily in France, and secondarily in the United Kingdom and Germany. Nowadays, there is also increasing talk of its influence over Argentina, especially in the context of the Andinia Plan.
But Brazil is almost always left out of this equation. To some extent, it is as if the image of a tropical “paradise” in perfect balance between Catholic faith and Dionysian spirit does not quite align with Zionist manipulations. But this perception is misleading.
In the past, we have commented on the overwhelming neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil. Today, they make up approximately 30% of the Brazilian population, and with their theological specificities, they bring with them an obsession with the State of Israel. Moreover, there are plenty of theses claiming that neo-Pentecostal penetration in Latin America was a successful operation orchestrated by the CIA to subvert hegemonic Catholic spirituality and pave the way for Zionism.
In parallel, however, the Brazilian Jewish community itself has gradually built a modestly influential lobby, well-connected in politics, the media, and the judiciary, though far less aggressive than the Zionist lobby in other countries.
The test to verify, however, the degree of Zionist influence in Brazil and how much neo-Pentecostal expansion will serve to guarantee Zionist designs is unfolding now.
After the Gaza War, in which the State of Israel clearly attempted to carry out a Palestinian genocide, Israel’s reputation was completely shattered. All the credit accumulated because of the Holocaust was entirely exhausted by the scenes of mass extermination of innocent women and children. The lies and hypocrisy were so great that many people even began to question more easily whether Israel might have been behind 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination.
In recent years, Israel’s influence schemes became famous, including paying virtual activists to make pro-Israel comments in online discussions. This has been given the name “Hasbara.” It is nothing other than propaganda.
We could say, therefore, that Gaza made decades of “Hasbara” disappear.
Naturally, however, Israel could not give up such an important asset. As much as Israel seems to disdain international opinion, this opinion plays an important role in pressuring governments to maintain friendly relations with Israel despite its atrocities.
Hence, it was predictable since the Gaza ceasefire that Israel would seek to react; but since it is impossible to regain the goodwill of world public opinion, the Zionist lobby would simply set out to try to censor anti-Zionist opinions, without worrying about winning over that public opinion.
Recently, we came across something that proves this.
At the end of March 2026, a bill (PL 1424/26) was introduced in Brazil aimed at criminalizing antisemitism. Antisemitism is already a crime in Brazil, as a form of racism, but it is not defined, so the interpretation of what constitutes antisemitism is left to the judge.
The bill in question, however, aims to define antisemitism according to the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Among the various conduct categorized as antisemitism, the IHRA includes, nonetheless, advocating for the end of the State of Israel as a specifically Jewish state. In other words, even advocating for the transformation of the State of Israel into a free, open Palestinian state where Jews can live is considered antisemitism.
This bill is authored by Tábata Amaral, a federal deputy for the PSB, and it received a total of 44 signatures upon its introduction, from federal deputies belonging to the governing Workers’ Party (PT), the Bolsonarist opposition PL, and various centrist parties.
But where did this bill come from, and who is behind it?
Starting with the purported author of the bill, Deputy Tabata Amaral — known for promoting every globalist agenda in Brazil — belongs to that category of “prodigy students” who are awarded scholarships to Western universities, in her case Harvard. Her stay there was funded mainly by the Lemann Foundation, created by Swiss-Brazilian billionaire Jorge Paulo Lemann.
Lemann, one of the richest men in Brazil, is a friend of George Soros and recently hired the Rothschild Bank to represent him before his creditors in the bankruptcy case of “Americanas,” a company he owns. But unlike Soros, who has a different focus, Lemann in his “philanthropic” activities has the more specific goal of renewing the Brazilian political class. Deputy Tabata Amaral is an example of what Lemann intends.
Furthermore, in the last elections, Amaral’s campaigns received funding from various figures in the Brazilian financial market — such as bankers Armínio Fraga and Cândido Bracher — and from the Zionist lobby — such as speculators Marcos Lederman and Luís Stuhlberger. Lederman, Stuhlberger, and Bracher, along with other oligarchs who fund Tabata Amaral’s electoral campaigns, such as Nizan Guanaes and Elie Horn, are figures who frequently appear at events and initiatives promoted by CONIB (the Israeli Confederation of Brazil), the Brazil-Israel Institute, and FIERJ (the Jewish Federation of Rio de Janeiro), important institutions of the Brazilian Zionist lobby.
And as for the bill itself, who convinced Tabata Amaral to promote it?
According to exclusive information from sources in Brasília, the bill was drafted within the NGO Stand With Us Brazil, a Zionist institution with extensive and notorious links to the Mossad, chaired by André Lajst, with Argentine Bruno Bimbi as its strategy and policy manager. Bimbi is said to have been the main architect of the bill and went door to door in Congress to pressure parliamentarians into putting their signatures on it.
Bimbi is a notorious activist for LGBT causes and was one of the main organizers of the pressure campaign for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina and Brazil. Now, however, his focus is more on Zionist activism.
To show that this is a broad-spectrum coordinated initiative, aimed at involving the right, left, and center simultaneously with this bill, the Lula government itself, through its Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship, will hold an event on “antisemitism” this April, coordinated by Clara Ant.
The event will put on its agenda the definition of antisemitism, relying precisely on the same International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance that defines criticism of the State of Israel as a possible expression of antisemitism. Among the speakers at the event will also be the presidents of the aforementioned CONIB, Claudio and Fernando Lottenberg.
And who is Clara Ant, the event coordinator? Born in Bolivia but raised in Israel, she has been Lula’s right-hand woman since the 1970s and was one of the founders of the CUT, the main trade union institution of the Workers’ Party. Ant is also a constant presence at CONIB events.
Another link between the PT and the Zionist lobby is Senator Jaques Wagner, who in his youth was an activist in the Labor Zionist movement Habonim Dror, where he received his intellectual formation. Both as governor and as senator, Wagner — who was one of those who signed in support of Tabata Amaral’s bill — worked specifically to bring Brazil and Israel closer, especially in the areas of security and intelligence, even serving as rapporteur for an agreement that ceded confidential Brazilian intelligence information to the Mossad.
It does not seem likely that, at the present moment, given all the controversy the case has generated, this bill will be approved in Brazil. Nevertheless, the case serves to exemplify the tentacular and multifaceted character of the Zionist lobby’s activities in Brazil.
Brazilian Congressman seeks to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil
By Eman Abusidu | MEMO | April 3, 2026
A Bahia state lawmaker has formally urged President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil, following a series of controversial incidents involving Israeli tourists in Bahia. The measure argues that individuals who took part in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon could be held accountable for acts described in the document as genocide.
The proposal, submitted by state representative Hilton Coelho of the Socialism and Liberty Party (Psol), calls on the federal government to adopt measures preventing individuals linked to alleged human rights violations from using Brazil as a tourist destination or refuge. The document characterises such acts as potential genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Coelho grounds the request in Brazil’s Federal Constitution, which prioritises human rights, peace, and the rejection of violence in international relations, as well as the Migration Law (No. 13.445/2017), which permits authorities to deny entry to foreigners suspected of serious violations.
The proposal outlines operational measures, including monitoring arrivals through the Federal Police to identify individuals who participated in military operations, immediate denial of entry where applicable, and international coordination to restrict cross-border movement of those under suspicion.
The initiative comes amid increasing controversy in Bahia, particularly in coastal destinations such as Itacaré and Morro de São Paulo, which have become popular among Israeli tourists, many of whom travel after completing mandatory military service. Local businesses have adapted to this demand, offering Hebrew-language services and tailored hospitality, making the segment economically relevant.
However, tensions have escalated. On 14th March, three Israelis were arrested during a protest in Itacaré against the presence of Israeli tourists. Footage from the scene showed clashes between demonstrators and police intervention. Authorities reported simultaneous opposing demonstrations, reflecting a divide within the local population.
Residents have also reported incidents involving alleged racism, aggression, and public disturbances attributed to some visitors. In parallel, there have been legal complaints filed in Brazil against Israeli individuals over alleged actions during the war in Gaza, with reports indicating that some left the country before investigations could advance.
Congressman Coelho argues that allowing entry to individuals linked to such allegations risks normalising human rights violations and contradicts Brazil’s foreign policy principles.
He is calling for coordinated action by the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs to enforce stricter entry controls.
The proposal will undergo review within Bahia’s Legislative Assembly before being forwarded to the federal government. The administration of President Lula has not yet issued an official response.
Critics of the proposal contend that the measure could be viewed as discriminatory and may create legal and diplomatic challenges for Brazil.
Simultaneously, several lawmakers and members of the Brazilian parliament, particularly from left-wing parties, have withdrawn their signatures from a bill seeking to define “antisemitism” in Brazil, in a significant political reversal that came only days after the proposal was introduced.
The withdrawals followed Palestinian criticism and warnings that the bill could be used to curb criticism of Israeli occupation policies.
According to documents, Bill No. 1424/2026 was submitted to the Brazilian Congress on 26th March 2026, by lawmaker Tabata Amaral and others under the title: “Definition of Antisemitism for the Purpose of Guiding National Public Policies.”
The bill defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward them.” It also states that manifestations of antisemitism “may target the State of Israel as a collectivity representative of the Jewish people,” while adding that “criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The proposal further links antisemitism to the crime of racism under Brazilian law and recommends using a list of examples issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, as guidance in interpreting the concept.
But the bill, which initially appeared to enjoy support from lawmakers across different party lines, quickly faced pushback inside Congress.
According to procedural texts, the withdrawal requests used direct language, including: “Requests the withdrawal of the signature from Bill No. 1424/2026, which defines antisemitism for the purpose of guiding national public policies.” One request stated: “I request the removal of my signature from Bill 1424/2026.”
The deputy Heloiza Helena said her name had been included among the signatories without her authorisation, describing the move as unacceptable. She also pointed to the sensitivity of the issue for Palestinians amid what she described as daily attacks, including the killing of children and the destruction of hospitals and schools.
While the deputy Ana Paula Lima said she removed her signature after a deeper assessment of the proposal, in order to avoid any possible restrictions on what she called “legitimate political debate.”
Brazilian mercenaries say they learned ‘guerrilla warfare’ in Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 3, 2026
The proxy war being fought in Eastern Europe is beginning to produce direct side effects on public security in Brazil. A recent report by the television program Fantástico, aired by TV Globo, revealed that Brazilian citizens with no prior military experience traveled to fight in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia after being lured by misleading financial promises. Upon returning, they bring with them practical knowledge of irregular combat learned on the battlefield – knowledge that, in a country already marked by heavily armed criminal factions, can easily be absorbed by organized crime.
The case of Marcos Souto, a businessman from the state of Bahia who adopted the codename “Corvo” (“Crow”), is emblematic. Having never served in the Brazilian Armed Forces, he claims to have learned everything he knows about guerrilla warfare in Ukraine. His account highlights two central elements: the precarious recruitment of foreign fighters and the brutality of the operational environment. According to him, combatants were attracted by promises of a salary of “50,000” – a figure many interpreted as Brazilian reais, but which in practice corresponded to 50,000 hryvnias, a much smaller amount. Upon reaching the front lines, they encountered not only extreme combat conditions but also internal coercion. Souto reports that those who attempted to abandon their positions were detained and tortured.
This is not an isolated episode. Other Brazilians mentioned in the report describe hunger, logistical abandonment, and even clashes with Ukrainian soldiers during escape attempts. Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs records 19 Brazilians killed and 44 missing since the beginning of the war, although analysts generally agree that the real numbers likely amount to hundreds of Brazilian fatalities. Even so, four years after the start of the conflict, new mercenaries continue to enlist.
The central issue, however, is not merely humanitarian. The strategic concern lies in the return of these individuals to Brazilian territory. Unlike conventional conflicts, the war in Ukraine is characterized by the intensive use of irregular, modern warfare tactics: operations with drones, urban ambushes, use of improvised explosive devices, infrastructure sabotage, and decentralized coordination in small units. The government in Kiev has long since lost much of its regular operational capacity and is compelled to rely on guerrilla tactics to continue fighting. It has become a contemporary laboratory of unconventional warfare.
When individuals without formal military training acquire this type of practical knowledge in a real combat environment and return to Brazil, the risk of diffusion of these techniques is evident. The country already faces structural challenges with criminal organizations that exert territorial control in urban areas and dominate international drug and weapons trafficking routes. The introduction of tactics learned in an active war theater could raise the operational level of these factions.
Historically, Brazilian organized crime has demonstrated a capacity for rapid adaptation. Factions have incorporated restricted use weapons, encrypted communication technologies, and sophisticated money-laundering methods. Absorbing knowledge about drone warfare, construction of improvised explosive devices, or urban fortification techniques would not require large structures to implement. The presence of just a few trained individuals willing to share their experience would suffice.
There is also a relevant psychological component. Combatants return after prolonged exposure to extreme violence, often without any state monitoring or social reintegration. The combination of trauma, financial frustration, and contact networks established abroad may facilitate involvement in illicit activities.
The Ukrainian embassy in Brazil states that it does not formally recruit Brazilians and that those who enlist assume the same duties as Ukrainian citizens. However, the existence of intermediaries, vague financial promises, and the absence of monitoring mechanisms in Brazil reveal a regulatory gap. There is no clear policy for dealing with citizens who participate in foreign conflicts and return with irregular military training.
The phenomenon should not be treated as a media curiosity but as a matter of national security. Brazil is not formally involved in the conflict in Eurasia, yet it is beginning to absorb its indirect effects. The internationalization of combat experience and its possible internalization by criminal networks represent a risk vector that requires coordinated attention among intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and diplomatic authorities.
Ignoring this dynamic may mean allowing techniques developed in one of the most intense conflicts of the present day to be reconfigured within Brazil’s urban context. A distant war ceases to be an external event and begins to produce concrete consequences for the country’s social structures and internal stability.
Davos, Mark Carney’s frankness, and the Euro-American rift
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 29, 2026
One of the defining factors of the era beginning from the second half of the 20th century is the partnership between the USA and Europe – initially only Western Europe, eventually most of the old continent. But “partnership” is perhaps an imprecise term. The ideal term would probably be “occupation,” since, as defined by Lord Ismay, NATO was created to “keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down.”
In the meantime, Europeans grew accustomed to an automatic alignment with the USA, quite similar to that of Ibero-American countries during the same period, with the exception of the brief period when Charles de Gaulle distanced his country from NATO. Otherwise, the Atlantic Alliance gradually absorbed European countries.
The confusion is such that when speaking of “Western civilization,” most people think of Europe and the USA together, not only as expressions of the same civilization but as possessing identical fundamental and strategic interests. The Davos Forum or World Economic Forum can be thought of as the “celebration” of this civilizational alliance, an event bringing together political, economic, and societal leaders from around the world to discuss the priorities to be adopted in the coming years.
Historically, the USA and its representatives have always been prominent at the Davos Forum in all discussions, whether on environmental issues, the supposed need to censor the internet, or the social transformations considered necessary to deal with the 2020 pandemic crisis or future health crises. It was a space for consensus and planning among the North Atlantic elites.
However, Trump’s antagonistic stance towards the countries of the European Union inevitably significantly changed the atmosphere of Davos this time.
The pressures and demands for the cession of Greenland, including the threat of using military force, ultimately became the driving force of interactions among the elites. Naturally, at this moment, EU countries would not be capable of mounting significant military resistance to the USA in Greenland. But the increase in European military presence on the Danish-owned island seems to serve simply as the drawing of a red line.
And despite Mark Rutte rushing to try to find some sort of compromise with Trump on the Greenland issue, the reality is that Trump’s mere threat and pressure against his supposed allies was enough to leave scars. In other words, no matter how timid and cowardly current European leadership may be, to the point of yielding time and again, European distrust and ill-will towards the USA is still likely to increase.
Perhaps it is even necessary to look at other sectors besides the political summit. Among intellectuals, think tanks, journalists, and influencers, it seems easier to find tougher and more critical positions regarding the USA, as well as less willingness to reconcile, than among national political leaders.
“Anti-Americanism,” once a central plank for both nationalist and socialist parties in Europe but fallen into disuse after the Cold War, may end up becoming an important discursive topic again in this era of rising diverse populisms.
To a large extent, the speech by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, can be seen as a reasonable summary of the current geopolitical moment.
Throughout his speech in Davos, Carney emphasized that for decades, Canada and most Western countries remained aligned with the so-called “rules-based international order,” even considering it partly fictional; still, it was a useful and pleasant fiction. The other Western countries knew that these rules were not applied equally to all countries, and that stronger countries were practically exempt from most of their regulations. Everything in that order depended on who was the “accused” and who was the “accuser.” Different countries, engaged in the same actions, such as suppressing civilian protesters, for example, would receive different treatment depending on who their leaders and governments were: some would receive no more than a symbolic slap on the wrist, others would be bombed and have their heads of state executed in sham courts.
And these Western countries were satisfied as long as the bombed countries were African or Arab or, occasionally, some Slavic country like Serbia. This was because, for a few countries, that order allowed them to collect benefits in the form of capitalist extractivism.
Now, however, the international order has ended. It does not even survive as a farce – according to Carney himself. Faced with a series of crises, many countries began to perceive global integration more as an Achilles’ heel than as an advantage. Goods might have been cheaper, but what good is the theoretical availability of cheaper products when, in times of crisis, they become inaccessible, as during the health crisis. Or when sanctions simply make trade relations unviable for targeted countries.
For Carney, therefore, some countries have decided to transform themselves into fortresses, primarily concerned with ensuring their own energy, food, and military autonomy. And one of the basic consequences of this change is the decline of multilateral organizations. International courts, the WHO, the WTO, the World Bank, and various other bodies are increasingly ignored and disdained by regional powers – in the case of countries outside the “Atlantic axis,” because they consider the influence of the USA and its allies in these bodies too great; in the case of the USA, because, on the contrary, they consider that these bodies do not sufficiently serve US national interests.
This parallel and crosswise dissatisfaction is natural, to the extent that international institutions only ever served the USA and its hegemony insofar as that hegemony was the best tool for gradually constituting a “world government,” that “New World Order” proclaimed by George H. W. Bush.
The consequence of this process of collapse of globalist multilateralism is that international relations have come to be dominated by force. Most medium-power countries are not prepared to deal with this new and sudden reality. Moreover, it is naive to simply condemn the current situation and hope for a return to the “good old days” of a “rules-based” international order where the rules do not apply equally to everyone.
Carney also makes a suggestion for these medium-power countries to deal with the current international situation: strengthen bilateral relations with countries of similar mindset and orientation, building small coalitions of reasonably limited scope, aiming both to eliminate possible economic weaknesses and to enhance security mechanisms.
Naturally, Carney is specifically referring to strengthening Canada-EU relations, but, to some extent, we can also apply this kind of reflection to those counter-hegemonic or non-aligned countries that are not continental powers like Russia, China, and India. The case of Venezuela demonstrated that it is, in fact, necessary to be prepared to deal with US aggressiveness.
Countries like Brazil, despite its size and the importance given to it in international relations, lack nuclear weapons and sufficiently modern military forces to effectively protect itself against a focused and determined military action. Naturally, Brazil should seek to solve these deficiencies (and, indeed, the debate on “Brazilian nuclear weapons” has already begun in political, military, and social circles), but no significant change will be seen in the short term – which is why Brazil actually needs to develop other ways to guarantee its own security that do not depend on simple servility to the USA.
It would be fully in Brazil’s interests to lobby, within BRICS, for increasing the “security” dimension of the coalition. Still, we doubt that the current Brazilian administration has any interest in this, or even that it understands the need for such a radical transformation. In the absence of this initiative, at the very least, Brazil should seek to update its military, intelligence, and radar technology with the help of Russian-Chinese partnerships. But on a regional level, Brazil needs to strengthen its ties with other South American countries and begin, subtly, to try to attract them and remove them from the US orbit.
In short, the mere fact that we are discussing these needs, instead of naively betting that international forums created on Western initiative will be enough to defend us, already proves that we are already in a new and dangerous world.
EU free trade pact on hold as farmers revolt
RT | January 21, 2026
The European Parliament has voted to refer a trade agreement with the South American bloc Mercosur to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). The move comes amid criticism of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for bypassing normal EU procedures and widespread protests from farmers across the bloc.
On Saturday, the EU signed a trade pact with Mercosur members Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The agreement that was projected to create the world’s biggest free trade zone still requires approval before it can take effect.
On Wednesday, the EU Parliament voted 334 in favor to 324 against, with 11 abstentions, to ask the CJEU to determine whether the deal is compatible with the bloc’s rules. The move now significantly delays the pact that had been negotiated for 25 years, and could potentially derail final approval.
The vote took place against the backdrop of criticism of von der Leyen for handling the Mercosur deal in a non-transparent way, splitting it into separate agreements to bypass national parliaments and reduce the European Parliament’s role to a formal opinion.
The deal has also faced widespread resistance from the agricultural sector, with farmers across the bloc staging mass protests over concerns that cheap imports could undercut their livelihoods. The latest rally began on Tuesday outside the European Parliament in Strasbourg and drew support from some lawmakers, continued overnight, and ended on Wednesday.
Von der Leyen had pushed the deal, describing it as a “clear and deliberate choice,” highlighting that the EU opts for “fair trade over tariffs” and “a productive long-term partnership over isolation.” The pact came just six months after she signed an agreement with US President Donald Trump that imposed a 15% tariff on most EU exports. The EC president faced strong pushback over the US deal from current and former EU officials and heads of member states.
The EU is Mercosur’s second-largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 17% of the bloc’s total trade in 2024, at €111 billion.
Brazil’s Ambassador to the OAS Denounces US Military Action Against Venezuela as a Global Threat
teleSUR – January 6, 2026
During an address to the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), Benoni Belli, Brazil’s ambassador to the organization, described the United States’ military action against Venezuela as “a very serious attack against Venezuela’s sovereignty and a threat to the entire international community.”
The Brazilian diplomat warned that the bombings of Venezuelan territory and the kidnapping of its president represent an unacceptable violation of international law. “The current situation is grave and evokes times we thought were behind us, which are once again devastating Latin America and the Caribbean,” Belli stated.
Belli rejected the logic that “the ends justify the means,” arguing that such reasoning lacks legitimacy and allows the strongest powers to impose their will on sovereign nations. “These acts open the possibility that the strongest will define what is just or unjust, disregarding national sovereignty,” he emphasized.
The ambassador’s statement highlights the geopolitical implications of a unilateral military intervention, and warned that it undermines multilateralism and fosters a global order based on the law of the strongest.
The Rise of the Isaac Accords: How Israel is Redrawing South America’s Political Landscape
This is not neutral cooperation. It is political conditionality.
By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | December 15, 2025
Foreign influence in the Global South rarely arrives in uniform. It comes disguised as ethics, stability, and shared values, only revealing its true cost once the rules are set. In Latin America, such a transformation is now underway. A new architecture of alignment is being quietly assembled, presented as moral course correction but functioning as a geopolitical filter. At its core lie the Isaac Accords, a project deliberately modelled on the Abraham Accords. Where the latter normalised Israel’s position in the Middle East through elite deals brokered by Washington, the Isaac Accords aim to reorder Latin American politics by locking governments, economies, and security institutions into Israeli and U.S. strategic orbit.
The Accords are not simply about Israel’s image or diplomatic isolation. They operate as a filter of legitimacy: governments that align are embraced, financed, and promoted; those that resist are marginalised, sanctioned, or framed as moral outliers. Venezuela, long aligned with Palestine and the broader Axis of Non-Alignment, sits squarely in the crosshairs.
This article examines how the Isaac Accords function in practice, why figures such as Javier Milei and María Corina Machado have become central to their rollout, and what this strategy reveals about Israel’s ambitions in South America, not as a neutral partner, but as an active geopolitical actor working in tandem with U.S. power.
The Isaac Accords: A Latin American Reboot of the Abraham Model
The Isaac Accords did not emerge in a vacuum. They are consciously modelled on the Abraham Accords, which rebranded Israel’s regional integration in the Middle East as “peace” while bypassing Palestinian self-determination entirely. The lesson Israeli and U.S. policymakers appear to have drawn is simple: normalisation works best when imposed from above, through elite alignment, financial incentives, and security integration.
The Accords are administered through a U.S.-based nonprofit, American Friends of the Isaac Accords, and financially seeded through institutions closely linked to Israeli state and diaspora networks. Their stated aim is to counter antisemitism and hostility toward Israel. Their operational requirements, however, reveal a far broader ambition.
Countries seeking entry are expected to:
- Relocate embassies to Jerusalem, recognising Israeli sovereignty over a contested city
- Redesignate Hamas and Hezbollah in line with Israeli security doctrine
- Reverse voting patterns at the UN and the OAS, where Latin America has historically voted in favour of Palestinian rights
- Enter intelligence-sharing agreements targeting Chinese, Iranian, Cuban, Bolivian, and Venezuelan influence
- Open strategic sectors: water, agriculture, digital governance, security, to Israeli firms
Israel’s own diplomats have described the Isaac Accords as a way to pull “undecided” Latin American states into Israel’s orbit at a moment when European public opinion has become less reliable. In other words, the Global South is being repositioned as Israel’s strategic rear guard.
The role of Javier Milei in Argentina illustrates how this model operates. Milei has not merely improved relations with Israel; he has embraced it as an ideological reference point. He has pledged to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem, framed Israel as a civilisational ally, and positioned himself as the Isaac Accords’ flagship political figure.
Co-Founder and Chairman of The Genesis Prize Foundation Stan Polovets presents prize to 2025 Laureate Javier Milei on June 12 in Jerusalem. (Source: American Friends of Isaac Accords)
That role was formalised in 2025 when Milei became the Genesis Prize Laureate, an award frequently described as the “Jewish Nobel Prize.” The Genesis Prize is not politically neutral. It is explicitly awarded to figures who strengthen Israel’s global standing and its ties with the diaspora. Milei’s decision to donate the prize money directly back into the Isaac Accords ecosystem symbolised how moral recognition, political allegiance, and financing now operate as a single circuit.
This is alignment rewarded, visibly, materially, and publicly.
As reported by AP in August, the Isaac Accords are set to extend to Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and potentially El Salvador by 2026, as stated by the organizers, the American Friends of the Isaac Accords.
Recent New York Times reporting situates Brad Parscale’s involvement in the Honduran election within Numen, a Buenos Aires–based political consultancy he co-founded with Argentine strategist Fernando Cerimedo, highlighting how transnational firms operate beyond traditional regulatory scrutiny. Critics warn that Numen’s methods reflect a broader global political influence ecosystem that often draws on data-driven targeting, psychological profiling, and digital amplification techniques associated with Israeli-linked political technology and messaging firms that have operated in elections worldwide.
When combined with U.S. political endorsements, strategic pardons, and offshore consulting structures, this model raises serious concerns about how advanced data analytics and covert messaging infrastructures are used to shape voter behavior in vulnerable democracies, eroding electoral sovereignty while remaining largely insulated from accountability.
Venezuela, Palestine, and the Manufacturing of Illegitimacy
If the Isaac Accords require a moral antagonist, Venezuela fulfils that role perfectly.
Since Hugo Chávez severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2009, in response to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Venezuela has positioned itself as one of Palestine’s most consistent supporters in the Western Hemisphere. Chávez, and later Nicolás Maduro, framed Palestinian resistance not as terrorism but as an anti-colonial struggle, aligning Venezuela with much of the Global South rather than the Atlantic bloc.
Under the Isaac Accords’ logic, this position is intolerable.
Opposition to Israel is no longer treated as a political stance but as evidence of extremism or antisemitism. Zionism and Judaism are deliberately conflated, allowing criticism of Israeli state policy to be reframed as hatred. This narrative provides the moral justification for isolation, sanctions, and, potentially, regime change.
Maria Corina Machado in Venezuela, Thursday, July 25, 2024. (Source: AP – Matias Delacroix)
Into this context steps María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition figure most warmly received by Israeli and U.S. political networks. Machado’s alignment with Israel is not rhetorical or recent. In 2020, her party, Vente Venezuela, signed a formal inter-party cooperation agreement with Israel’s ruling Likud Party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu. The agreement committed both parties to shared political values, strategic cooperation, and ideological alignment.
This is a remarkable document. It ties a Venezuelan opposition movement directly to a foreign ruling party, well before any democratic transition, and signals how a post-Maduro Venezuela is expected to orient itself internationally.
DOCUMENT: Vente Venezuela signs cooperation agreement with Israel’s Likud party – Agreement signed by María Corina Machado and Eli Vered Hazan, representing Likud’s Foreign Relations Division (Source: Vente Venezuela)
Machado has since gone further, pledging to:
- Restore full diplomatic relations with Israel
- Move Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem
- Open Venezuela’s economy to privatisation and foreign investment
- Align Venezuela with Israel and the United States against Iran and regional leftist governments
Her narrative rests on a crucial claim: that Venezuela itself is not anti-Israel, only its government is. According to this framing, Venezuelans are inherently pro-Israel and pro-West, their “true” preferences suppressed by an illegitimate regime.
In a November interview with Israel Hayom, Machado asserted that “The Venezuelan people deeply admire Israel.”
This argument is politically useful and historically thin. Venezuelan solidarity with Palestine predates Maduro and reflects a wider Latin American tradition of identifying with colonised peoples. To erase that history is to deny Venezuelans their own political agency.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has repeatedly accused the Venezuelan government of fomenting “anti-Israel” and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Yet, a closer look tells a different story. Caracas’ statements are largely expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination, combined with pointed criticism of Israeli state policies. By framing these positions as attacks on Jews or Israel itself, the ADL distorts the narrative, turning principled political stances into a perceived moral failing. This tactic underscores a broader pattern in which international organizations can paint Global South governments as rogue actors whenever they resist the gravitational pull of Israeli and U.S. influence, subtly laying the groundwork for diplomatic pressure or intervention.
DOCUMENT: Mini report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, accuses Venezuela of fuelling an incendiary anti-Israel and anti-Semitic environment.(Source (ADL)
Security, Economics, and the Cost of Obedience
Beneath the moral language of the Isaac Accords lies a familiar architecture of control: security integration, economic restructuring, and ideological discipline.
Israel is a leading exporter of surveillance technologies, border systems, cyber-intelligence platforms, and urban security tools, many developed under conditions of occupation and internal repression. In South America, these systems are marketed as solutions to crime and narcotrafficking, but their real function is often political: expanding state surveillance capacity during periods of transition.
Security cooperation creates dependency. Once intelligence-sharing, training, and doctrine are integrated, political autonomy narrows. Policy divergence, particularly toward China, BRICS, or non-aligned partners, becomes risky.
The economic dimension is equally strategic. Israeli firms are deeply involved in water rights, desalination, agrotechnology, digital governance, and infrastructure, sectors that determine long-term sovereignty. These investments are typically tied to privatisation, deregulation, and long-term concessions, transferring control of strategic resources away from the public sphere.
Venezuela is the ultimate prize. A post-sanctions transition would open one of the world’s most resource-rich economies to restructuring. Machado’s commitment to rapid privatisation aligns seamlessly with this vision, raising an unavoidable question: who benefits from “democracy” when it arrives pre-packaged with foreign economic priorities?
This strategy is inseparable from U.S. power. The Trump administration’s framing of global politics as a permanent war on terror and narcotrafficking, a framing echoed by figures like Marco Rubio, has provided cover for sanctions, covert operations, and extrajudicial violence across the Caribbean and Pacific. Israel’s partnership reinforces this logic, supplying both technology and moral framing.
Conclusion: The Global South and the Right to Choose
The Isaac Accords are not simply about Israel’s diplomatic standing. They are about reordering South America’s political horizon at a moment when the Global South is rediscovering multipolarity.
Israel’s role in this process is active, strategic, and consequential. Through political patronage, economic leverage, security integration, and narrative control, it is shaping which governments are deemed legitimate and which are disposable.
For South America, and the wider Global South, the warning is familiar. When alignment is framed as morality, dissent becomes deviance. When sovereignty is conditional, development serves external interests. When history is rewritten, intervention soon follows.
Non-alignment was never about isolation. It was about the right to choose. That very right, today, is being quietly renegotiated, and the cost of refusing may soon become very clear.
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- The Andean Shadow Army
- Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov
- US Flaunts On-Orbit Weapon to Supercharge Space Arms Race
- If Americans Knew
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- 37 Palestinian journalists held in Israeli jails, rights group says
- Israel’s Hilltop Youth Recruits Minors to Terrorize Palestinians (with video)
- 100 Colonial Plans Advance in West Bank Since Start of 2026
- New Maps Show How Israel Has Thwarted Hopes for a Palestinian State
- Israel trying to ‘eliminate’ living conditions for Palestinians in West Bank
- Matt Gaetz’s Brilliant Exposé on Israel Partisans’ Claims of “Antisemitism”
- MAGA Didn’t Vote For War With Iran
- No Tricks Zone
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
Aletho News 