Brazil has quasi-presidential system, but it's Chamber of Deputies has the actual power.
In the 2000s, Lula's PT was the largest party (usually around 20-25% of the total seats) and could as such strongarm smaller leftist parties into a governing coalition with an absolute majority.
Lula won the presidential election in 2022, but his party PT was the 3rd largest, and center-right parties have created a vote sharing agreement with his party.
The anti-Bolsonaro center-right parties have 172 seats in the Chamber, Lula's governing coalition has 226. You need 257 to have a majority. This means Lula has to severely tone down his rhetoric otherwise a subset of the independent parties would defect to Bolsonaro's coalition.
> but as a geopolitical news junkie
As someone who worked in the space, stop.
It's a waste of time as you're not in a position to make changes, nor are you reading primary or peer reviewed secondary sources.
If you insist on continuing, use a mix of
- Academic books (generally HUP, OUP, UCUP though the occasion PUP is alright)
- White Papers from top tier think tanks (use the UPenn Rankings [0])
- Axios and Politico - their target readership is aimed directly at those working on the Hill or Hill adjacent
Just sticking with these 3 types of resources should be enough.
Also, IGNORE anything on Twitter, Reddit, or HN (ironic ik). The lesswrong/credibledefense/zeihan types are all idiots ime. Using an "objective" tone doesn't make rubbish "objective"
Twitter (Alperovitch / Silverado Policy, someone influential enough to be sanctioned by Russian gov.) and HN is what surfaced the Russian invasion months before it happened. No academic book or Axios or Politico article was there to inform you conclusively that early. Lesswrong and HN were also much earlier (Jan '20) to the Covid epidemic, a major geopol issue, than your sources.
I appreciate the recommendations, but you're presenting valid useful alternatives (to be used as imperfect parts of a synthesis) as "idiots" when there are major counterfactuals they were better at.
I still empathize that those institutional sources are usually much better than the average social media post or user.
> Twitter (Alperovitch / Silverado Policy, someone influential enough to be sanctioned by Russian gov.) and HN is what surfaced the Russian invasion months before it happened
The CSIS [0], Atlantic Council [1][2], Politico [3], and the IISS [4] warned about an impending Russian Offensive in violation of the Minsk Agreements months before Feb 2022.
> Alperovitch
Alperovitch had the benefit of having cofounded Crowdstrike and having worked closely with the NSC on multiple issues regarding Cybersecurity Policy, Russia-US relations, and China-US relations for almost 20 years.
He was absolutely synthesizing the same sources as the ones I provided during that time period.
C'mon, you can't believe that any of those 5 sources offers the same conclusive Russian invasion information in advance as Alperovitch. Alperovitch was certainly using adjacent sources, but synthesized a strong assertion (rather than reporting potential concerns) in advance of the others. Therefore, his novel analysis (on Twitter!) was more useful than any of those, some of which are just reporting the concerns around Putin's essay or Donbas-related rotations a year before.
Essentially what I just said: "No academic book or Axios or Politico article was there to inform you conclusively that early."
And you admit Alperovitch's Twitter is useful for his NSC and geopol access.
> As someone who worked in the space, stop. It's a waste of time as you're not in a position to make changes
We need people in the top 25% of the clued range to speak up. Otherwise the loud morons in the bottom 25% are at risk of being taken seriously by the middle 50%. Arguments don't need to be peer-review-quality every time someone speaks.
r/AskHistorians and Twitter OSINT beg to differ. If you think those aren't the opinions of top 5% thinkers (only most informed out of 20 people, 1/2 are <100 IQ), then I question if you've met 40 average citizens before...
People on this site are much more likely to be in the top 50%. Telling someone to shut up if they're not arbitrarily qualified is much more effective on people in the top quartile than the bottom one. [1]
Why should they stop if this is something they enjoy reading and learning about? Why should they want to or have to affect changes personally? I fail to understand the last part..
>Also, IGNORE anything on Twitter, Reddit, or HN (ironic ik). The lesswrong/credibledefense/zeihan types are all idiots ime. Using an "objective" tone doesn't make rubbish "objective"
Not to mention these sites are FILLED to the brim with bots. Eg. In 2013, the most "reddit-addicted" area was Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, with largest amount of activity [0]. Eglin was one of the few places used in a study for testing social media manipulation by Pentagon [1]
And not to mention the Russian/Chinese/Indian bots
Agreed! Brazil has a very complex federal quasi-presidential system!
Please please please read academic books about the political history of Brazil or contemporary politics in Brazil instead of listening to a rando like me on the internet!
I'd recommend reading "Modern Brazil: A Social History", "The Brazilian Constitution of 1988: a comparative appraisal", "Constitutional Engineering in Brazil: The Politics of Federalism and Decentralization", etc, but there are some additional papers and books I could recommend as well.
> Please please please read academic books about the political history of Brazil or contemporary politics in Brazil instead of listening to a rando like me on the internet!
Axios is easy, butdo you mind expanding the acronyms to true newbs in the field? :)
BTW, how truly bad is Stratfor really these days?I had a subscription more than a decade ago and appreciated their geopolitical analysis essay format which provided the history, background, big picture, then detail and their forecast. Never cared much if their forecast was on the money, it was the human readable background which I found interesting :)
> As someone who worked in the space, stop.
It's a waste of time as you're not in a position to make changes, nor are you reading primary or peer reviewed secondary sources.
If you insist on continuing,
You could have cut this out of your comment, and made your point much more effectively without the elitism.
Brazil has quasi-presidential system, but it's Chamber of Deputies has the actual power.
In the 2000s, Lula's PT was the largest party (usually around 20-25% of the total seats) and could as such strongarm smaller leftist parties into a governing coalition with an absolute majority.
Lula won the presidential election in 2022, but his party PT was the 3rd largest, and center-right parties have created a vote sharing agreement with his party.
The anti-Bolsonaro center-right parties have 172 seats in the Chamber, Lula's governing coalition has 226. You need 257 to have a majority. This means Lula has to severely tone down his rhetoric otherwise a subset of the independent parties would defect to Bolsonaro's coalition.
> but as a geopolitical news junkie
As someone who worked in the space, stop.
It's a waste of time as you're not in a position to make changes, nor are you reading primary or peer reviewed secondary sources.
If you insist on continuing, use a mix of
- Academic books (generally HUP, OUP, UCUP though the occasion PUP is alright)
- White Papers from top tier think tanks (use the UPenn Rankings [0])
- Axios and Politico - their target readership is aimed directly at those working on the Hill or Hill adjacent
Just sticking with these 3 types of resources should be enough.
Also, IGNORE anything on Twitter, Reddit, or HN (ironic ik). The lesswrong/credibledefense/zeihan types are all idiots ime. Using an "objective" tone doesn't make rubbish "objective"
[0] - https://www.bruegel.org/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploa...