Brazil’s Support For Investigating The Nord Stream Attack Doesn’t Mean That Lula Is Pro-Russian
This deliberately false narrative pushed by Lula’s online sycophants is intended to distract from the objectively existing and easily verifiable proof that he’s really a US-aligned liberal-globalist who’s politically against Russia in its proxy war with NATO, the fact of which discredits the notion that he has a truly multipolar worldview.
The “Lula Liberals”, which refers to his online sycophants who support whatever he does, are spinning Brazil’s vote at the UNSC for investigating the Nord Stream attack as supposedly proving that their “secular god” is pro-Russian and allegedly always has been. This deliberately false narrative is intended to distract from the objectively existing and easily verifiable proof that he’s politically against Russia in its proxy war with NATO, the fact of which discredits the notion that he has a truly multipolar worldview.
Lula condemned Russia in his joint statement with Biden from early February, after which he ordered his country’s diplomats to vote at the UNGA for an anti-Russian resolution instead of remaining neutral like Brazil’s fellow BRICS partners did. He then doubled down on this stance in his follow-up call with Zelensky. This sequence of events leaves no doubt that he’s politically aligned with the US against Russia in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II.
The Lula Liberals have desperately tried to cover up for his “politically inconvenient” stance by lying that it’s the exact same as Bolsonaro’s, which isn’t true. That former leader didn’t condemn Russia in the official readout that was published following his meeting with Biden last June unlike Lula did in their earlier mentioned joint statement. Moreover, Zelensky revealed after their call in July that he criticized Bolsonaro’s neutrality towards the conflict, while later praising Lula for Brazil’s recent UNGA vote.
The contrast between Bolsonaro’s and Lula’s positions is clear: while Brazil voted against Russia under each of their presidencies, the first refused to personally condemn Russia while the second did so while talking to his American and Ukrainian counterparts, which are Moscow’s two worst enemies right now. Bolsonaro was also criticized by the State Department for meeting with President Putin a week before the special operation began, while the US hasn’t criticized Lula for his approach to him or Russia.
As for those anti-Russian votes, they weren’t mandated by Article 4 of the Brazilian Constitution stipulating that foreign policy must promote certain principles like the Lula Liberals claim since abstaining doesn’t violate the aforesaid and arguably reinforces some of them like “non-intervention”. Rather, both leaders wanted to signal their political support for the US in this conflict, but for different reasons.
Bolsonaro was concerned that the Biden Administration’s ideologically driven deterioration of Brazilian-US ties would reach the point of no return if he ordered his country to abstain from those votes (with the exception of the one about removing Russia from the Human Rights Council). In that scenario, he feared that the US would support Lula in the upcoming election, which the American Prospect compellingly argues that it ultimately did. It can therefore be said that Bolsonaro’s gamble failed.
By contrast, Lula’s ideological alignment with the US’ ruling liberal-globalists explains why he continued Bolsonaro’s policy of voting against Russia at the UN, though he wanted to accelerate the strengthening of their ties instead of avert their potential worsening like his predecessor intended. Unlike Bolsonaro, who went against his Russian-friendly gut instincts (which were evidenced by his trip to Moscow and refusal to personally condemn Russia) as part of his political gamble, Lula is totally sincere.
He genuinely believes that Russia is wrong for employing military force as a last resort to defend the integrity of its national security red lines in Ukraine after NATO clandestinely crossed them there. This explains his decision to break with Bolsonaro by jointly condemning Brazil’s BRICS partner after meeting with Biden. It also accounts for why Zelensky praised Lula following their call after February’s UNGA’s vote instead of criticizing him like he did Bolsonaro with respect to the latter’s self-described neutrality.
It's with Lula’s proven political unfriendliness towards Russia in mind that observers should interpret Brazil’s vote at the UNSC for investigating the Nord Stream attack. He didn’t order his diplomats to do that due to some sudden Russophilic impulse but because Brazil’s objective national interests are advanced by supporting an independent investigation into this act of sabotage. Failing to do so would have precluded it from supporting the same in the event that something similar ever happens in Brazil.
There’s no doubt that the 12 countries whose representatives abstained from that resolution did so for political reasons, but Brazil’s vote in support of it was purely apolitical as explained. The Lula Liberals’ literal information warfare campaign spinning it as pro-Russian is meant to mislead their targeted audience by manipulating them into thinking that Lula is pro-Russian and always has been despite that narrative having been completely debunked by verifiable facts throughout this analysis.
* 8 March: “Lula Is Meddling In Nicaragua At Biden’s Behest”
This article series comprehensively proves that Lula’s worldview is a US-aligned liberal-globalist one, not pro-Russian or truly multipolar, thus meaning that those of his online sycophants who still claim otherwise are lying.