What's up with Lula? Well the article outright says it!
"Lula was scheduled to travel to Russia for the summit, but cancelled the trip after injuring his head in an accident at home on Saturday."
But really, it seems like a combination of standard squabbling, and also that perhaps Brazil prefers the potential benefits of being the only country in South America that is part of brics.
Idk what Brazil sees as the benefits, but to my analysis, they see whatever benefits of being the lone brics member in South America as worth more than expanding it with Venezuela, else they would have let them in.
Maybe it's not economic but political and the political power that let them have power to single handedly VETO and be the ones to stop Venezuela from joining could be potentially lost or atleast lessened? (Not saying they'd lose veto power, more of a "soft" loss of power)
I just can't believe it starts and ends with a silly ideological disagreement over validity of Maduros election records. Considering there are already multiple different economies and ideologies in the group, I don't see why the relatively minor disagreements on those fronts would be the deciding factor, so this leads me to believe it's not that. (if China and India can agree, Venezuela and Brazils disagreement has no excuse to get in the way).
Also, would you care to explain how that's not how economies work? It's my understanding that as long as Brazil is the only link to South America, then any interaction that has to do with South America would reasonably pass through Brazil first, right? They would be the "hub to South America" so to speak?
Intermediation is good for power but not good for economics. Mutual thriving is objectively better for economics along every measure. Intermediation only works when you're doing either a colonialism or a neocolonialism, both of which the global south is soundly dismantling. For Brazil to decide to intermediate an entire continent economically is to be engaged in theory from the early 1900s.
I think the geopolitical considerations are more useful to us in analyzing the situation. The USA is starting to threaten Brazil over joining BRICS. The USA is also rabidly anti-Venezuela. I think the veto fits far more neatly into this dynamic where Brazil does not yet wish to create a strong schism with the USA and so is maintaining some level of rapport to avoid some Monroe Doctrine shenanigans from sending high velocity projectiles towards Lula's brain.
What's up with Lula? Well the article outright says it!
"Lula was scheduled to travel to Russia for the summit, but cancelled the trip after injuring his head in an accident at home on Saturday."
But really, it seems like a combination of standard squabbling, and also that perhaps Brazil prefers the potential benefits of being the only country in South America that is part of brics.
Honestly, what are those potential benefits? Because that's not how economics works.
Idk what Brazil sees as the benefits, but to my analysis, they see whatever benefits of being the lone brics member in South America as worth more than expanding it with Venezuela, else they would have let them in.
Maybe it's not economic but political and the political power that let them have power to single handedly VETO and be the ones to stop Venezuela from joining could be potentially lost or atleast lessened? (Not saying they'd lose veto power, more of a "soft" loss of power)
I just can't believe it starts and ends with a silly ideological disagreement over validity of Maduros election records. Considering there are already multiple different economies and ideologies in the group, I don't see why the relatively minor disagreements on those fronts would be the deciding factor, so this leads me to believe it's not that. (if China and India can agree, Venezuela and Brazils disagreement has no excuse to get in the way).
Also, would you care to explain how that's not how economies work? It's my understanding that as long as Brazil is the only link to South America, then any interaction that has to do with South America would reasonably pass through Brazil first, right? They would be the "hub to South America" so to speak?
Intermediation is good for power but not good for economics. Mutual thriving is objectively better for economics along every measure. Intermediation only works when you're doing either a colonialism or a neocolonialism, both of which the global south is soundly dismantling. For Brazil to decide to intermediate an entire continent economically is to be engaged in theory from the early 1900s.
I think the geopolitical considerations are more useful to us in analyzing the situation. The USA is starting to threaten Brazil over joining BRICS. The USA is also rabidly anti-Venezuela. I think the veto fits far more neatly into this dynamic where Brazil does not yet wish to create a strong schism with the USA and so is maintaining some level of rapport to avoid some Monroe Doctrine shenanigans from sending high velocity projectiles towards Lula's brain.