Um grupo de 25 deputados democratas dos Estados Unidos cobrou explicações do secretário de Estado, Marco Rubio, sobre a possível participação do governo de Donald Trump na saída do senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) do Brasil e na entrada dele em território americano. A carta foi encaminhada na quinta-feira (29) e questiona se autoridades dos Estados Unidos ajudaram a viabilizar a viagem, mesmo diante de uma decisão judicial brasileira que restringia os deslocamentos internacionais do parlamentar.

O documento reúne 15 questionamentos sobre a atuação do Departamento de Estado, da Embaixada americana no Brasil e de outros órgãos federais. Os congressistas querem saber se houve participação institucional na emissão dos vistos, na organização do transporte e nos procedimentos para permitir a entrada de Flávio e de familiares nos Estados Unidos.

“A questão central é simples: o Departamento de Estado, a Embaixada dos Estados Unidos no Brasil ou qualquer outra agência do governo americano ajudou o senador Bolsonaro a viajar para os Estados Unidos ou a entrar no país, apesar da restrição judicial brasileira à sua saída?”, questionam os parlamentares.

Os democratas estabeleceram 13 de novembro como prazo para o envio das respostas por escrito. Também solicitaram uma reunião com representantes do Departamento de Estado para obter esclarecimentos sobre o episódio.

Vistos e ordem do STF

A carta foi apresentada pelas deputadas Sydney Kamlager-Dove, da Califórnia, copresidente da bancada dedicada às relações com o Brasil, e Dina Titus, de Nevada. Entre os demais signatários estão Pramila Jayapal, Joaquin Castro, Greg Casar, Rashida Tlaib e Delia Ramirez.

Um dos principais pontos da cobrança envolve a concessão de vistos ao senador e a seus familiares. Os deputados querem identificar quem autorizou os documentos, quando foram emitidos e se as autoridades americanas tinham conhecimento da determinação do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) antes de permitir a entrada do brasileiro.

A decisão judicial determinava que Flávio entregasse seus passaportes e restringia sua saída do país. Os parlamentares questionam se o governo americano verificou a existência de autorização judicial para a viagem e se chegou a reconsiderar os vistos depois de tomar conhecimento das medidas impostas pela Justiça brasileira.

Viagem também envolve Argentina e Equador

Outro trecho do documento aborda a possível participação de funcionários americanos na organização do itinerário utilizado pelo senador. Os democratas querem saber se representantes do governo dos Estados Unidos na Argentina ou no Equador participaram de alguma articulação relacionada aos deslocamentos.

A carta também pergunta se houve contatos entre integrantes da Casa Branca, do Departamento de Estado e outras agências americanas com Flávio, familiares, advogados, assessores políticos ou intermediários.

Os congressistas cobram informações sobre eventual ajuda na contratação ou organização de voos, emissão de documentos, transporte, acesso a aeroportos e planejamento da entrada em território americano.

A articulação ganhou repercussão após reportagens sobre a participação de Jason Miller, assessor próximo à família Bolsonaro e ligado à Casa Branca, na organização do jato utilizado pelo senador e seus familiares. A informação foi divulgada pelo jornal americano The New York Times.

Os parlamentares também querem saber se houve comunicação entre o Departamento de Estado e órgãos responsáveis pela imigração e pelo controle de fronteiras, como o Departamento de Segurança Interna (DHS) e a Alfândega e Proteção de Fronteiras (CBP).

Democratas questionam possível impacto diplomático

A iniciativa também aborda as consequências que uma eventual assistência americana poderia provocar nas relações entre Washington e Brasília. Os deputados perguntam se o governo Trump avaliou o risco de que a participação na viagem fosse interpretada como interferência em processos judiciais brasileiros ou nos assuntos internos do país.

O documento solicita ainda esclarecimentos sobre possíveis pedidos de informações feitos por autoridades brasileiras a respeito da localização de Flávio e de sua entrada nos Estados Unidos. Caso tenham ocorrido, os parlamentares querem conhecer as respostas fornecidas pelo governo americano.

“O povo americano e o Congresso têm um interesse legítimo de fiscalização em compreender se recursos diplomáticos e migratórios dos Estados Unidos foram utilizados para facilitar a viagem de uma figura política estrangeira nessas circunstâncias”, afirma a carta.

Os deputados acrescentam que a transparência é necessária diante da sensibilidade das relações bilaterais e da existência de um processo judicial no Brasil.

Até o momento da divulgação da cobrança, o Departamento de Estado não havia apresentado respostas públicas aos questionamentos. A carta representa uma iniciativa de fiscalização parlamentar e não comprova, por si só, que órgãos do governo americano tenham participado diretamente da saída de Flávio Bolsonaro do Brasil.

The post Democratas cobram Rubio sobre ajuda dos EUA na saída de Flávio Bolsonaro do Brasil appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.

The US is delaying PAC-3 interceptors for Ukraine’s Patriot air defense systems while older PAC-2s keep arriving, a NATO source told Radio Svoboda on 29 October. PAC-3 is the Patriot missile built mainly to stop ballistic missiles.

The delay comes as Russia leans on ballistic missiles against the capital. In two weeks, Russia launched more than 100 at Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his 27 October evening address. “And above all, we do not have enough missiles for Patriots,” he added. On 29 October, Zelenskyy said Ukraine has intelligence that Russia is preparing new ballistic missile attacks. Kyiv is “awaiting the relevant decisions” on interceptor packages, “primarily for Patriots,” he said.

A question for politicians

The PAC-2s, used mostly against aircraft and cruise missiles, arrive through PURL, the NATO mechanism under which allies pay for US weapons for Ukraine. The PAC-3 delay is under discussion at a high political level, the NATO source said. It is unclear when the situation will change.

What Washington said before

On 20 October, Hegseth said in Wisconsin: “We haven’t changed our posture in any way toward the Ukrainians, but certainly with things like interceptors, we want to make sure our guys have the most possible as well.”

“We haven’t changed our posture in any way toward the Ukrainians, but certainly with things like interceptors, we want to make sure our guys have the most possible as well.” Hegseth said in Wisconsin

The same day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio conceded that some interceptors bought for Ukraine through PURL may not have been delivered, Reuters reported. “There’s nothing being deliberately denied to Ukraine,” he said, adding: “We have our own needs, too.”

He was 12 and his sister was 14 when their mother told them they were leaving for the United States. It had been only two years since the Cuban Revolution, and fear had spread that the new government would strip parents of custody of their children or send them to the Soviet Union. Before they boarded a plane to Miami, their mother handed his sister a guitar and gave him a box of candy. Eleven days later, sitting on bed number eight in a shelter in Kendall, Frank Rodríguez felt hungry.

Seguir leyendo

© Lynne Sladky (AP)

El jefe de la diplomacia rusa, Serguéi Lavrov, estará presente este fin de semana en la reunión de ministros de Exteriores del G-20 en Atlanta (Georgia, Estados Unidos). Y su presencia en esta cita anual, por primera vez desde el comienzo de la guerra en Ucrania en 2022, con la consternación de los representantes europeos y sin la participación de su homólogo ucranio —Kiev no forma parte del grupo de países con las mayores economías del mundo, pero había estado invitada a este tipo de citas en años previos—, agita un encuentro que comenzó este viernes para tratar asuntos como ese conflicto y la ofensiva contra Irán. El rechazo europeo al ministro de Exteriores de Rusia ha impedido hacer la tradicional foto de familia de este tipo de citas, prevista en principio para la mañana de este viernes. Eliminada de la agenda, se desconoce si habrá algún tipo de imagen paralela, excluido Lavrov.

Seguir leyendo

© Megan Varner (REUTERS)

Según la investigación, están detrás de los canales en redes sociales de las protestas Leer

Russia’s foreign minister arrives at the G20 meeting in Atlanta without Moscow having made significant concessions over Ukraine. His presence offers a reminder that diplomatic access can be valuable even when negotiations produce little progress.

Sergei Lavrov’s arrival in the United States for the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting is unlikely to transform the prospects for peace in Ukraine. For Moscow, however, the visit offers opportunities extending well beyond the formal agenda.

Russia’s veteran foreign minister will participate in discussions alongside representatives of the world’s major economies, including governments that have imposed extensive sanctions on Moscow and others that have maintained profitable commercial relationships with it.

The meeting, chaired by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 30–31 October, takes place as Washington pursues another diplomatic initiative concerning Ukraine.

Lavrov’s presence has attracted criticism from American lawmakers, including Republican Congressman Don Bacon, who has questioned why a senior representative of a government conducting military operations against Ukrainian cities should be welcomed in the United States.

Yet the more consequential issue is not whether Lavrov should attend. It is what Moscow hopes to achieve through renewed access to Western diplomatic forums, and what the United States expects to obtain in return.

Russia’s Diplomatic Opportunities

The Kremlin has spent much of the war arguing that Western attempts to isolate Russia have failed.

There is some substance to that argument, although it requires qualification.

Russia has suffered extensive restrictions on access to Western finance, technology and markets. Its economic relationships with Europe have been severely reduced, and its dependence on alternative trading partners has increased.

Nevertheless, Moscow has preserved important commercial and diplomatic connections with China, India and other countries unwilling to participate fully in Western sanctions.

For these governments, relations with Russia are often determined by energy requirements, commercial opportunities and their own strategic calculations rather than European security priorities.

The G20 provides Moscow with an opportunity to exploit those differences.

Lavrov can challenge Western sanctions, defend Russia’s diplomatic positions and hold bilateral discussions without demonstrating any willingness to compromise over occupied Ukrainian territory.

That does not make the meeting a Russian victory. Attendance at a multilateral gathering is not equivalent to the removal of sanctions or recognition of territorial claims.

But it offers Moscow something useful: opportunities for engagement without the conditions that would normally accompany substantive negotiations.

The limitations of such diplomacy were illustrated recently when German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul met Lavrov in New York.

As EU Today examined in its analysis of that encounter, the meeting reopened a channel of communication but produced no visible movement in Russia’s position.

Germany restated its support for Ukraine. Moscow reiterated its established arguments.

The encounter demonstrated that diplomatic access and diplomatic progress are not necessarily the same thing.

Washington’s Negotiating Problem

The Trump administration approaches Russia from a different perspective.

Washington appears increasingly interested in identifying economic and political incentives that could make a negotiated settlement possible.

The calculation is understandable. Sanctions alone have not ended the war, and continued fighting imposes enormous costs on Ukraine while consuming Western military resources.

However, negotiations depend on more than establishing contact.

A settlement requires agreement over territory, security arrangements, enforcement mechanisms and the consequences of renewed hostilities.

Russia’s willingness to participate in discussions does not establish its willingness to accept terms compatible with Ukrainian sovereignty.

Nor does the prospect of economic cooperation necessarily create sufficient leverage to change Moscow’s calculations.

The administration must also consider how concessions offered to Russia would affect Ukraine’s ability to negotiate.

If Moscow expects economic benefits merely for remaining at the negotiating table, it has an incentive to prolong discussions while preserving its military position.

Conversely, a credible offer tied to verifiable Russian actions could provide a basis for substantive bargaining.

The difference lies in the conditions attached to any concessions and the mechanisms available to enforce them.

Europe’s Place at the Table

For European governments, the Atlanta meeting exposes a familiar weakness.

The EU is a major provider of financial assistance to Ukraine, maintains extensive sanctions against Russia and would face the consequences of any settlement that failed to establish lasting security arrangements.

Yet European influence over direct American-Russian negotiations remains limited.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas is attending the meeting and will conduct bilateral discussions, according to the European External Action Service’s official announcement.

Her participation gives Brussels an opportunity to communicate its position. It does not guarantee a role in determining the terms of any eventual agreement.

Ukraine itself is not participating in the gathering, although the G20 meeting is not formally a peace negotiation.

The danger for Europe is not simply exclusion from particular meetings. It is the possibility that decisions affecting European security will emerge from negotiations in which European governments possess limited influence over the agenda.

The EU retains important instruments of leverage, particularly sanctions, financial assistance and access to its markets.

But those instruments are less effective when member states disagree over their use or when Washington pursues a separate diplomatic strategy.

The Wider G20 Agenda

The meeting also takes place amid serious tensions over Iran, maritime security and international trade.

Washington wants greater cooperation over freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea, Black Sea and South China Sea.

These priorities intersect with European interests, particularly energy security and the protection of commercial shipping.

Yet the participating governments approach these disputes from markedly different positions.

China has little interest in endorsing an American interpretation of maritime security that could constrain its own regional ambitions.

Russia is unlikely to support arrangements that weaken its position in the Black Sea.

Meanwhile, disagreements over American tariffs complicate Washington’s efforts to secure cooperation from traditional economic partners.

The G20 remains useful precisely because governments with conflicting interests can communicate through it.

But communication should not be mistaken for agreement.

For Moscow, Lavrov’s visit offers another opportunity to demonstrate that Russia remains engaged in international diplomacy despite its war against Ukraine.

For Washington, the challenge is to show that renewed engagement can produce something more substantial than another meeting.

Europe’s concern is more immediate: any settlement negotiated with Moscow will have to be sustainable on European territory, with European resources and against the possibility of renewed Russian aggression.

Diplomatic access may be relatively easy to restore. Establishing credible security arrangements will be considerably harder.

Anti-socialist opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado on Thursday affirmed that Venezuela will become America's greatest ally in the region once it finishes its transition back to democracy after nearly three decades of socialism.

The post María Corina Machado: Venezuela Will Become U.S.’s ‘Greatest Ally’ Once It Returns to Democracy appeared first on Breitbart.