Latin America

Cuba voted to spite all its enemies

National elections showed a convincing victory for the socialist project of Liberty Island in competition with those who bet on its destruction. Today, the most unusual man, a legend of Cuba and the whole revolutionary movement of Latin America, Raúl Castro Ruz became an ordinary Cuban at the age of 91. In the municipality of Segundo Frente, in the province of Santiago de Cuba, he had to "fight for the deputy seat" of the 10th convocation of the National Assembly of People's Power (NAPP) of the Cuban Parliament - with the 47-year-old chairman of the Local Economic and Development Commissions, Alender Chaveco Torres. However, the latter is ready to yield without a fight to the commander, he believes that the voice of Raúl Castro is now more important than ever and is the determinant of the Republic's policies. National elections in Cuba are held every five years, and their importance can hardly be overestimated. In spite of the fact that the legislative body includes such personalities as the President of the Republic himself, high-ranking statesmen, famous scientists, doctors and teachers, artists and athletes, front-rank workers, the National Assembly consists mainly of citizens, unknown outside their settlement, but who by their work and intelligence have made a real contribution to the development of their area. Former citizens of the former socialist commonwealth have already forgotten the kind of world order where lawmaking was performed by professionals, and not by mere words. At the first meeting, the new composition will elect the chairman, deputy chairman and secretary of the NAPP, and members of the State Council. Under the new 2019 constitution, deputies choose the president and vice president of the Republic from among themselves, while the prime minister is approved at the suggestion of the elected head of state. The Assembly is a unicameral parliament and the only body in Cuba with both constituent and legislative powers. This has perplexed Cuban opponents for decades, but as Jorge López, then editor-in-chief of the youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde, told me back in the 1980s, "for a small island in the Caribbean, one chamber is enough to solve not only the country's internal problems, but also the geopolitical problems of Latin America and the world." Not much has changed since then, except for the more sophisticated anti-Cuban policies of its northern neighbor. The election of the 10th convocation of NAPP took place in an atmosphere full of new challenges in the economic, social and political spheres. The old ones, if you can call them that, remain provocations and threats from "Yankee imperialism." Inflation, lack of resources, shortages of essential goods and food, which the state has historically tried to alleviate with a card system and a rationed food basket at controlled prices, difficulties in the national electricity system and marked increases in utility prices, the 60-year economic blockade of the United States and the absence of former Soviet aid have taken a toll on the lives of Cubans. The consequences of the global financial and economic crisis, exacerbated, it is believed, by the artificially induced Covid-19 pandemic (by the way, Cuba, thanks to its developed health care system, not only coped with the pandemic itself, but also helped others, including European countries, in a very decent manner) became a new affliction. At the same time, a fairly solid legal foundation has been established: the new 2019 Constitution stipulates that "socialism and the revolutionary socio-political system established by the Constitution are irreversible," and the Communist Party is "the supreme governing force in society and the state." The CPC continues to rule the country at all levels, the security forces on the island are under strict party control, and the new constitution prohibits discrimination based on gender, race or ethnicity. For example, the family code adopted by referendum last year legalized same-sex marriage, far from being peculiar to Cubans. At the same time, the liberal transgender establishment prohibits them from "picking their noses," accusing the Liberty Island of lacking democracy. On the eve of the national elections, the United States decided to inflict a nasty blow on the Cuban authorities by reopening the U.S. Consular Office in Havana in January 2023, five years after its closure, offering immigrant visas and luring them with the benefits of "a rich and free life." With this political, propaganda stunt, the Yankees sought to denigrate, or if you prefer, avenge the Cuban people for not kneeling before the most powerful nation in the Western world. Every day tens of thousands of migrants from Central and South America, and the Caribbean islands flee to the United States, and none of them has the same privileges as Cubans, and none of these countries is even reproached by Washington for violating democracy. Rosa Miriam Elizalde, vice president of the Cuban Union of Journalists, wrote in the Mexican newspaper La Jornada that the U.S. policy of "maximum pressure" on Cuba has only led to "chaos" on its own border. And it's true. The "wet foot, dry foot" policy that had been in effect since President Clinton, under which any Cuban who set foot on U.S. soil, whether on land or on water, had the right to legal status in the United States, followed by citizenship, created big problems for the United States itself and was repealed. With great difficulty, U.S. "diplomats" manage to gather activists and opponents who, from behind the Straits of Florida, urged via social media not to vote or to deface the ballot papers as a protest against the political system on the island. The National Election Council (NEC) conducted an audit during the campaign. According to NEC chairwoman Alina Balceiro, the results were "very positive and only 1 percent of the 23,468 polling places were problematic." In this context, the key point for friends and enemies of Liberty Island was turnout. On Monday morning, March 27, Balceiro reported that preliminary figures show that 6,164,876 Cubans out of 8,120,072 registered voters, or 75.92 percent of the electoral roll, exercised their right to vote. About 90.28% of the ballots cast in the ballot boxes were valid. "Blank" ballots were 6.22% of the total, and those cancelled were 3.50%. Among the total number of valid votes cast, 72.10% were votes for all and 27.90% were selective. "Preliminary results confirm the election of 470 deputies to the supreme body of state power," said Alina Balceiro. "The table is set," Cubans say of a resolved matter. "The hard core" - the vast majority of the Cuban population - demonstrated in March 2023 loyalty to Cuba's historic choice - the project of Fidel and Raúl Castro. The 10th convocation of the National Assembly of People's Power will focus primarily on overcoming the difficult economic and social situation in the country. "This is a vote in defense of the revolution, in defense of socialism," said Miguel Diaz-Canel, President of the Republic of Cuba and First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba. The election was declared valid.

Will the South Pole become a new hot spot?

An explosive struggle at the "gateway to Antarctica" Argentina's Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero, tired of numerous skirmishes with his British counterpart, wrote on Twitter that he informed James Cleverly on the sidelines of the G20 Foreign Ministers' meeting in India about the decision of official Buenos Aires to negotiate the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands with London at the UN Headquarters in New York. "The Falkland Islands are British, - Cleverly responded on Twitter. - The people of the islands have the right to decide their own future; they have chosen to remain an autonomous overseas territory of the United Kingdom." The British call them the Falkland Islands, while the Argentines call them the Islas Malvinas. For more than two centuries, Great Britain considers them its own, while Argentina considers them its own. But we are talking about the same archipelago of two large islands of West Falkland (Grand Malvinas) and East Falkland (Soledad) and more than 775 small islets and rocks in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Today this British Overseas Territory is an important intermediate point on the southern route from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, as well as the "gateway to Antarctica.» The dispute between Argentina and Great Britain over the ownership of the archipelago is perhaps the longest in human history. Great Britain began its occupation of the islands in 1690, but Argentina did so ten years later, when Spain expelled the British and took control of the archipelago. Having gained independence, the founders of Argentina in 1820 continued the work of the former metropolis and seized the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, from which they were expelled by the British in 1833. Since then, London and Buenos Aires have fought sluggishly without fists. It would have lasted for an unknown number of years if Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri, who had seized power in Argentina, had not wanted to engage in a full-scale war with Britain to strengthen his dictatorship. Galtieri declared the Malvinas Islands "native Argentine territory" and on April 2, 1982, his troops occupied the islands with lightning speed. London did not expect such boorishness and sent an expeditionary corps. Up to 60,000 men, over 180 ships and vessels, and 350 warplanes and helicopters took part in the fighting on both sides. The United States supported the United Kingdom, insisted on condemning the aggressor at the UN, imposed, as it should have done, economic sanctions against Argentina, and supplied the British with powerful Sidewinder missiles. China and the USSR refrained from intervening. Argentina's fate was sealed, no miracle happened: in 74 days of fighting, 255 British soldiers, three islanders and 649 Argentinians were killed, and the British crown won. Despite the fact that the local population - 4,500 people - fully considers itself subjects of the British king, Argentina does not abandon territorial claims to the islands. Over time, in the long-running "battle," questions of prestige, which for decades prevailed in this dispute, have finally receded into the background. The struggle for territory, resources, and economic superiority, traditionally the main and primary cause of interstate conflicts, overshadowed the ambitions of the participants in this "knightly" tournament. In 2016, the British company Rockhopper Exploration reported the discovery of large oil fields near the coast of the Falkland Islands. The City of London presented this good news in the right way to the Foreign Office, and in the same year the British Deputy Foreign Secretary Alan Duncan and Argentine Carlos Foradori signed a pact that defined not only shipping and fishing issues, but most importantly, gas and oil extraction around the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. In London's favor, of course. The cunning "gentlemen" actually deprived Argentina of the prospect of becoming a black gold-importing country. Finally, the last straw in the cup of patience of the Argentines was an invasive claim to the creation of the British Antarctic Territory as a separate overseas possession. Currently, there are seven states claiming territory in Antarctica: Australia, France, Norway, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile and the UK, with the latter three countries disputing a number of territories of the ice continent from each other. In 2007, London announced an expansion of its Antarctic territory by a million square kilometers. Now British claims (there are four) already cover a vast territory near the South Pole. Since all the claimants to the territory are parties to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which recognizes the sixth continent as a zone of peace and international cooperation free of weapons, it is impossible for these disputes to enter the military stage. At least that is the theory. In practice, the world's specialists in military-political machinations and deceit are capable of anything. And already the Pentagon's website 19fortyfive, as it is believed even in America, is asking the question: will Antarctica become another geopolitical hot spot when its natural resources are discovered? From the point of view of the current Argentine government, Great Britain has gone too far. On March 2, 2023, by denouncing the Foradori-Duncan Pact, the Argentine government effectively escalated this long-suffering territorial dispute in the Western Hemisphere. And it deliberately did so at the G20, the main platform for North-South dialogue. The Argentine Foreign Ministry called the pact "clearly illegal and offensive to national interests" and explained that the denunciation of the agreement confirms that Buenos Aires aims to continue the struggle to regain sovereignty over the disputed territories. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (CELAC), which does not include the United States and Canada, supported Argentina's position in the dispute with Great Britain. London promotes its claim to the South Pole through the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, which the British consider their "gateway to Antarctica." It is to this end the government of the archipelago notified the world community in late 2018 of its intention to build a new deep-water port and announced a competition for the best project. "With the construction of this port, the UK intends to strengthen its colonialism in the Falkland Islands and the region as a springboard for expanding its influence in Antarctica," said Argentine National Congress (Parliament) Senator Pablo Blanco of Tierra del Fuego. He was wrong about one thing. It is not "its colonialism" that a decrepit British lion is strengthening at the South Pole of the world, but the neo-colonialism of the Bald Eagle, which seeks to illegally "establish itself" in foreign territory, removing competitors from its path. So far, vast distances and harsh climate reliably protect Antarctica, what cannot be said about the North Pole, where the U.S. has no scruples about entering the Russian part of the Arctic Ocean, and where they not only want to get a hold of the discovered gas fields, but also to interfere in the Northern Sea Route, which promises great prospects for global shipping. Washington intends to bargain for its piece in the North by blackmailing Moscow out of the geopolitical equation of Antarctica: Washington is not meddling in this continent, so Moscow does not need it either. Unlike the United States, Russia has a right to participate in drafting the political status of Antarctica, since the continent was discovered by Russian navigators Faddey Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev. But the fact that the British, Australians, and New Zealanders have already drawn their borders means only one thing: Uncle Sam actually broke into the "gate of Antarctica."

"New Pole of Power" south of the Rio Grande

This is called "Brzezinski's nightmare" - South American countries unite and meanwhile support Russia and China. While U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was building "exemplary cooperation" with the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia in Astana, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev unexpectedly appeared in the U.S. "backyard" - in Caracas and Havana - where he held expanded Russian-Venezuelan and Russian-Cuban consultations on security and countering "color revolutions." The U.S. media and pro-American Latin American media were quick to link these visits, thinking that the Security Council secretary's unannounced trip to Latin America was Moscow's response to the U.S. Secretary of State's visit to Central Asia. However, Blinken's talks in Astana did not particularly impress the Kremlin. This cannot be said about the White House, which was really excited by hearing what Nikolai Patrushev had to say. "Our consultations today are taking place against the backdrop of a difficult situation in the world. The whole world, all sovereign states are experiencing a moment of truth, when a choice must be made: to defend the freedom to choose the path of development, their values and identity or to submit to the dictate of the so-called collective West led by the United States," said the Secretary of the Russian Security Council at a meeting with Jose Ornelas Ferreira, the Secretary General of the Venezuelan National Defense Council. It seems that Patrushev's visit to Venezuela and Cuba was not unplanned. The time has come for Moscow to respond to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's January initiative. Let us remind: on January 12, 2023, in his annual address to the National Assembly, the President of Venezuela proposed to create a bloc of countries allied to Russia and China in Latin America. "A new hour is coming, a special hour to unite the efforts and paths of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean to move forward in the formation of a powerful bloc of political forces, a powerful economic bloc that will speak to the world, that will invite the world to integration, to create new poles of power, a world community with a common destiny." Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro proposed the creation of a political bloc in alliance with Russia and China, whose leaders Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping he called "big brothers." Obviously, you cannot go to the stage with such an address without a favorable regional environment and prior consultations. Nicolas Maduro told his nation, the Latin American and world public that he held consultations with Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Alberto Fernández of Argentina. Mexico and Uruguay clearly expressed their support for Maduro's legitimate government. There is every reason to believe that Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Chile will follow the "whales" of Latin America, also affected by the "pink tide" - the coming to power of nationally oriented social-democratic forces. And, of course, Cuba and Nicaragua, which have withstood North American provocations and blockades for decades, will not stand aside. It became obvious that the Rio Grande has not only geographically but also politically divided North and South America. In the U.S., which used to consider itself if not the king, then the "godfather" of the "banana republics", this "demarche" of Maduro was perceived as a direct challenge and an act of defiance. It did not help that almost all the countries that supported Maduro also supported the anti-Russian resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in February of this year on "the Principles Underlying the Comprehensive, Just and Sustainable Peace in Ukraine." Moreover, not a single Latin American country imposed sanctions against the Russian Federation, as demanded by the collective West. Latin America's uncomfortable, if not "lethargic," position on the "invasion of Ukraine" was evidenced by the region's unwillingness to send any combat material to Ukraine. "The offer from the US sounded appealing: if Latin American nations donated their ageing Russian-made military kit to Ukraine, Washington would replace it with superior American weaponry. But far from taking up the US proposal, which was revealed last month by General Laura Richardson, head of the US Southern Command, Latin America's leaders lined up to denounce it," the Financial Times noted. Not only the U.S., but also the "United States of Europe" failed to persuade "Latinos" to share arms and ammunition with Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz returned from a trip to Brazil, Argentina and Chile empty-handed. Lula rejected his request to resell tank ammunition to Berlin for use in Ukraine, Alberto Fernandez refused to send weapons to Europe, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador criticized Germany for agreeing to send tanks to Ukraine, and once the United States' closest ally in the region, Colombia, through President Gustavo Petro, declared that it "would rather have the weapons turned into scrap metal than sent to Ukraine." And only Chilean President Gabriel Boric offered Kiev assistance, but only in mine clearance. In the meantime, these countries have a sufficient number of modern Soviet and European weapons. Opinion polls show that Latin American nations agree with their leaders on this issue. About 73 percent of Latin Americans surveyed last year by the international research company Ipsos "believe that their country cannot afford to financially support Ukraine, given the current economic crisis," said Jean-Christophe Salles, executive director of Ipsos in Latin America. Ukraine is not the priority of Latin American domestic and foreign life today. The position of individual countries and the whole Latin America is rather determined by the economic imperative. And if everything is learned in comparison, then the comparison of the cooperation offered by Russia to Venezuela, as well as the generally disinterested support for Cuba and Nicaragua, is diametrically opposed to what the United States offers to its "backyard." It became obvious to everyone that after Havana and Managua, Caracas was able to withstand the blockade, sanctions, and direct interference in its internal affairs not only because of the steel nerves of its leader Nicolas Maduro, the support of the army and security forces, and the determination of the people, but also because of Russia's help. And this is much appreciated. Lula da Silva, who had already taken office on January 1, as The Daily Signal wrote, "is likely to help revive the "Union of South American Nations" with Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and strengthen the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC, which excludes U.S. participation." At the same time, the Brazilian president held negotiations with his Argentine counterpart to create a regional currency, the SUR, which, according to the Washington Examiner, "is a deliberate attempt to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar." It was hard to believe that the annual message to the nation by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, in which he proposed to create a "political bloc" of Latin America and the Caribbean with the Russian Federation and the PRC, could become a "new pole of power", the countdown to a new era of the Latin American continent, would contribute to the destruction of the unipolar world and, therefore, of American hegemony south of the Rio Grande. It was hard to imagine that the annual message to the nation by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, in which he proposed to create a "political bloc" of Latin America and the Caribbean with Russia and China, could become a "new pole of power", the countdown to a new era of the Latin American continent, and would contribute to the destruction of the unipolar world and, therefore, of American hegemony south of the Rio Grande. But we should not flatter ourselves and discount the sophistication with which the United States has for centuries imposed its dictates, overthrew unwanted governments and installed "their own sons of bitches." This experience cannot be forgotten. And the new democratically elected, nationally oriented "pink tide" authorities will have to fight hard for their self-determination, for their place in regional and world geopolitics. But the step has been taken. And already south of the Rio Grande, they are waiting impatiently, and north excitedly, for a possible visit of the Russian foreign minister. "We expect to make a visit to a number of Latin American countries in the near future," Sergei Lavrov said at a press conference on the results of a meeting of the G-20 Foreign Ministers Council in New Delhi, TASS reported. He noted that Latin American and Caribbean countries "are increasing their political weight," and recalled the initiative of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to create "an alliance in favor of greater protection of the region's interests in the international arena." "We certainly have a very promising agenda for the development of bilateral relations in all spheres: in the economy, high-tech, humanitarian and educational contacts," Lavrov stressed. One of the worst geopolitical scenarios, "Brzezinski's nightmare" is already looming on the "Grand Chessboard" facing Capitol Hill: the creation of a coalition involving China, Russia, possibly Iran and Latin American countries, which will change the unipolar American system into a multi-polar world.

The Presidential Palace in Brasilia was seized

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The other day it was hot in the capital of Brazil. And you can't call it a political carnival. Was it a spontaneous occurrence, a rehearsal, or a warning? Just a week after the election of President Lulu da Silva, thousands of supporters of far-right ex-President Jair Bolsonaro seized the presidential palace, the buildings of the National Congress and the Supreme Court. All this was accompanied by looting and pogroms. And the new government underestimated the strength of the protesters, the police were clearly not enough. It was a full-fledged coup attempt. Everyone is already comparing the events in Brasilia with an attempt by Trump supporters to seize the Capitol. In both capitals there were clashes with the police, looting and looting in the occupied buildings. But the analogy suggests itself not only with the seizure of the Senate, but also the Ukrainian Maidan, where a coup d'etat and another "color" revolution took place with the help of the West and the United States. The methodology was the same everywhere: accusing the current government of corruption and that the elections were rigged. And then, as always, social networks are connected, unknown organizers allocate buses, products and everything without which the so-called "spontaneous performances of ordinary people" are impossible to the "rebellious people". It was the same in Brazil. There, according to a tried-and-tested scenario, calls appeared on social networks to take to the streets, accusations of corruption against Lulu, calls not to recognize the election results. By the way, there were also free buses that brought demonstrators to the main square. As in the States, Bolsonaro's supporters refused to admit defeat in the elections. Interestingly, the ex-president, who verbally condemned the riots, was in the USA at that time, in Orlando. And this, of course, is a "coincidence". What an interesting pattern: every contender for power who did not receive it democratically, for some reason, during the riots turns out to be in the States. How can we not remember Venezuela and the self-proclaimed President Guaido? Naturally, Washington also disavowed the coup attempts. "The United States condemns any attempts to undermine democracy in Brazil," US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan tweeted (banned in Russia). – President Biden is closely monitoring the situation, and we are unwavering in our support for Brazil's democratic institutions. Violence cannot destroy Brazil's democracy." But then the question arises: why was Bolsonara sheltered in Florida, who did not directly, but urged his supporters not to recognize Lula's victory? The methods of the States are known, and if there was a serious concern about the unrest in Brasilia, the losing president would have been "prompted" how to calm down or provoke his supporters. For the similarity of views with the former US president, Bolsonara is called the "Latin American Trump." He took over the country in 2019 and is known for extreme right-wing views, support for military dictatorship, anti-feminism and LGBT, covid-dissidence. Observers see the seizures of buildings and pogroms committed in Brazil as manifestations of "Trumpism". But the main question remains: how did it happen that the power structures did not pay attention to the signals that went through social networks and indicated an increase in the degree of mood of the supporters of the losing president? Last year, the highways were already blocked, but they did not achieve their goal. It feels like it was a gesture of desperation. Moreover, the seizures of administrative buildings and pogroms in them occurred not at the time of summing up, not at the time of the inauguration, but after it. Moreover, it has already been stated that federal forces will be involved to suppress such demonstrations. The main victim here is former President Bolsonaro, because it will be difficult for him if he suddenly decides to go to the polls. He himself is hardly behind the direct organization of events. But it seems that he was aware that something like this could happen. And so he left the country. So that the bribes were smooth, and other people conducted the organization of unrest. In light of these events, one cannot help but wonder who is more sympathetic to Russia: the newly elected President Lula or the election loser Bolsonaro? Here the calculation is simple. Lula is left–wing, and Bolsonaro is far-right. The leftists in Latin America have always had sympathy for Russia, which became the world's first socialist state. In addition, the left is always critical of the United States, which fought the Socialists throughout Latin America, not excluding Brazil, where they still remember Operation Car Wash – it was carried out by the CIA, defeating the left forces. Lulu himself was sent to prison on a far-fetched corruption charge and failed to win the last election. But during his reign, Lulu was an ardent supporter of BRICS and maintained good relations with Russia. So far, there is no reason to assume that serious political upheavals await Brazil. The political leaders of neighboring countries demonstrate a rare unanimity: everyone is against the protests, everyone supports the elected head of state. And, although at first there was a rare inaction of the Brazilian law enforcement forces, who complacently contemplated, or even accompanied the columns of the discontented, in the end the system showed that it works quite well and allows you to cope with the aggressively minded masses. However, questions remain. And between the three possible answers – it was an impromptu, a rehearsal or a warning to Luna da Silva – the choice is difficult: I don't really believe in the spontaneity of the protest movement. The US obsession with constant interference in the affairs of other countries, the use of modern technologies to adjust the election results to American ideas about how other countries should live, make the spontaneity of certain dramatic events unlikely. In an interview with TASS, Leonardo Paz Neves, a political scientist from the expert-analytical center "The Jetuliu Vargas Foundation" (FGV), did not rule out that the Brazilian and American riots may have the same inspirers. Although for American Democrats, any negative mention of Trump supporters, and Bolsonaro belongs to them, is a big plus. Therefore, they are now even demanding the extradition of the losing Brazilian from the United States. Lula da Silva must draw the right conclusions. At least that democracy should be able to defend itself. By the way, scolding opponents, he made a mistake out of excitement and called them Stalinists. I corrected myself: I meant fascists. But the main thing is that the president of Brazil does not make mistakes further and does not allow the development of events according to the American scenario. The one that led to the witch hunt and the split of the country after January 6.

Brazil: Lulu is back

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The change of power in the leading country of South America is unlikely to have, despite the attempts of the States, an impact on positive relations with Russia. The current President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, announced that he would not go to the G20 summit, which will be held on November 15-16 on the Indonesian island of Bali. Thus, he, in fact, admitted his defeat. Why rush to the end of the world with his agenda if his term of office expires at the end of the year. On January 1, power passes into the hands of the elected president, the leader of the left Party of Workers, 77-year-old Luis Inacio Lulu da Silva. Or just Lulu (this is a diminutive form of the name Louis. - Auth.), as it is called in a country where "there are so many wild monkeys." In the second round, he scored 50.9% (against Bolsonaro's 49.1%), which gave a difference of only 2.1 million out of 120 million votes cast. Bolsonaro's supporters are still standing at the gates of the barracks, demanding to carry out a military coup and return Lulu to prison, from where he left not so long ago. But Jair seems to have decided to peacefully transfer power and not provoke a conflict. Let me remind you that in July 2017, Lulu was behind bars. He was sentenced to 9.5 years in prison in a case of corruption and money laundering. During the investigation, it was found that during his tenure as head of state (two terms), a corruption scheme was organized in which construction companies received contracts for major projects for Petrobras oil, transferring kickbacks to the ruling Workers' Party and its leaders. In November 2019, Lulu, after spending 580 days in prison, was released. And in March 2021, the Federal Supreme Court cleared him of all charges. The 35th (2003-2011) and 39th (elected) president of Brazil played such a "Latin American roulette": if they wanted to, they put them in jail, if they wanted to, they released them. Who launched it? All the intrigues are connected with the active participation of the US Embassy (read – the White House) in the internal life of Brazil. When Donald Trump, a supporter of traditional values, was at the helm in the States, the American diplomatic mission actively supported Bolsonara. Leftist forces in Latin America claimed that the whole story of Lula's trial was initiated by his republican administration in order to open the way to the presidential palace to his protege. Now Democrat Joe Biden, a supporter of liberal values and gender ideology, rules the ball in Washington. From his point of view (or rather, from the point of view of his puppeteers), Bolsonaro, who preaches Christian morality, is an enemy. He had to be removed. It is no coincidence that since 2020, when the government changed in the United States, he was attacked inside the country - by governors and the judiciary, who denounced him, accusing him of authoritarianism and other sins. At the same time, Lulu, perhaps the only Brazilian charismatic politician who could seriously compete with the current president, was also put forward to the forefront. To begin with, American well-wishers thoroughly "laundered" him, assisted in the removal of all charges, coached him in the right liberal way (during the election campaign he flirted with the LGBT community and even decided to support abortion freedom), after which they threw him into battle. Lulu is an experienced politician. For example, he quickly realized that in Brazil, where 70% of the population does not support the topic of artificial termination of pregnancy, democratic agitation will not take place. In the second round, he abruptly changed his position, speaking in favor of banning abortions. And he switched to economic issues, putting the fight against poverty at the forefront. And now, actually, the main question is: why did the Biden administration bet on Lulu? Today, Brazil is a major player in the regional and international arenas. It claims to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Related to this is her activity in the "Group of Four" (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan). The members of this association have pledged to support the application of any of its participants for a permanent seat in the Security Council in the event of its expansion. Brazil is a member of the BRICS and the group of twenty leading economies in the world. It is considered the "locomotive of development" in South America. This leads to the conclusion that the leader of this country, no matter who supports him – Trump or Biden – knows his own worth and will definitely not be a puppet of the States (in the literal sense of the word). And yet the list of expectations for Lulu from "Washington a la Biden" is very wide. I will name the main ones. Globalists expect him to become a kind of symbol of the commitment of the "third world" to liberal values, so that he is like a new (old!) the leader of the largest and most influential country in Latin America, set the "right example", at least, to his continent, which is experiencing a "left march". This is when left-wing politicians who oppose the dictate of the United States come to power here. Another extremely important topic for the States is an attempt to slow down the process of strengthening and expanding the BRICS with the help of a "lured" Lulu. Let me remind you that Lulu, during his first presidency, was one of the founders of this political and economic center, an alternative to Western associations. While the Brazilian was in prison, and after being released, he was preparing for a new throw into power, the structure straightened its shoulders. This year, Argentina and Iran have applied for membership. Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have expressed their desire to join it. Let's see if the Biden administration can use Lulu as a "Cossack sent"? The elected President of Brazil, as well as his predecessor, who is retiring, are positive – I want to believe! – to develop relations with Russia. This country with a strong agricultural sector is unlikely to be able to do without our fertilizers in the foreseeable future. Last year, 9.8 million tons were exported from Russia (85% of all Brazilian imports of these products). Interestingly, in 2021, the volume of trade between the countries increased by 86%, reaching 7.5 billion dollars. In the first half of this year, despite international difficulties, it has already grown by 78% (!). As for the political aspects, Brazil quite predictably voted for the UN Assembly resolution condemning the annexation of four Ukrainian territories to Russia. I note that this approach is traditional for Brazilian diplomacy. At the same time, she, again following her beliefs, categorically opposes the economic sanctions of the West against our country, has not joined them. I want to believe that with the arrival of Lulu on the presidential bridge, this position, despite the machinations of the United States, will not change. Moreover, almost half of Brazilian society supports Bolsonara. He managed to promote many of his people to important posts – in both houses of parliament and in the governor's corps. In particular, his henchmen will head two main states – Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. In other words, he is leaving, but Bolsonarism remains an active opposition force.