October 26, 2025 • 13 mins
In this episode we unpack the high-stakes meeting between US President Donald Trump and Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit. We examine how the US-Brazil trade deal could reshape bilateral diplomacy and global supply chains.
We cover key topics including: the 50 % tariffs imposed by the US on Brazilian goods, how Brazil responded, what Lula and Trump agreed — and why this matters for Brazilian exports, US consumers and global trade flows.
Listeners will gain insight into the politics behind the tariff hike, how the negotiating teams plan to act “immediately”, and what the phrase “pretty good deals for both countries” may really signal.
Tune in for an in-depth analysis of US-Brazil diplomatic relations, trade leverage, and why the ASEAN summit frame matters. Listen till the end for expert insights on the potential outcomes.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
We cover key topics including: the 50 % tariffs imposed by the US on Brazilian goods, how Brazil responded, what Lula and Trump agreed — and why this matters for Brazilian exports, US consumers and global trade flows.
Listeners will gain insight into the politics behind the tariff hike, how the negotiating teams plan to act “immediately”, and what the phrase “pretty good deals for both countries” may really signal.
Tune in for an in-depth analysis of US-Brazil diplomatic relations, trade leverage, and why the ASEAN summit frame matters. Listen till the end for expert insights on the potential outcomes.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate. Our discussion today, Well, it focuses
on the critical high stakes diplomatic maneuvering that followed that
recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Brazil's President
Louis Inacio Lula de Silva. This was on the fringes
of the Aussion Summit, and you know, this meeting was
really billed as the key to unlocking those punitive US tariffs,
(00:23):
specifically that huge jump to a fifty percent duty that
have really destabilized the US Brazil trade relationship lately. High
stakes indeed, exactly, So the central question before US is
pretty profound. I think, given the agreement for immediate high
level negotiations, does this outcome signal a genuine shared political will,
(00:46):
a will to prioritize economic normalization and remove these frankly
stinging tariffs. Or is this interaction merely a short term
diplomatic tactic, you know, just managing deeper, unresolved political conflict
that stem explicitly from US sanctions and that ongoing legal
drama surrounding former President jay Or Bolsonaro. Now, I'll be
(01:08):
taking the position that the overwhelming economic comparatives are now
driving this resolution forward. Basically, forcing both sides toward practical
trade focused outcomes.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
And I come at it from a different angle. While yes,
the public focus is on the diplomatic handshake and the
promise of immediate talks, I believe the core of this
dispute remains fundamentally political. And this means any rapid trade resolution, well,
it's going to stand on pretty precarious ground. That massive
tariff hike wasn't some standard trade adjustment. It was I argue,
(01:42):
deliberately designed as targeted political leverage. And the speed of
the negotiations that feels more like tactical decompression to me,
not really a sign that the root cause has been addressed.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Okay, but I see a definite shift in priorities based
on what came out of the summit, the constructive tone
adopted by both leaders and that explicit agreement to start
talks immediately. That demonstrates a practical desire to put commerce
and economic stability first, you know, overriding these deep ideological
and political riffs. Lula himself described the meeting as great,
(02:15):
and crucially, he stated that their teams would convene immediately
to resolve the tariffs and the associated sanctions that immediacy
for me is key. It indicates a prioritization of action
over well over grievance. H And we also saw President
Trump focusing forward, didn't we stating he expected to make
(02:36):
pretty good deals for both countries. That signals a mutual
focus on trade benefits rather than you know, settling old
political scores. And we have to remember the economic backdrop here.
Lula has long criticized his tariff hike, pointing to the
historical and significant four hundred and ten billion dollar US
trade surplus with Brazil over the past fifteen years. He
views this tarif hike as an economic mistake that simply
(02:59):
must be crit if tu ygotiation because frankly, it harms
both supply chains, not just Brazil's bottom line.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
That's a thoughtful analysis of the economic pressure points, certainly,
But I have to frame the entire episode differently. The
economic dispute just cannot be separated from the underlying political conflict.
In fact, I'd argue the former is simply a tool
of the latter. The US Brazil economic relationship is right
now being dictated by political leverage tied directly to Brazil's
(03:28):
internal legal dramas. Okay, duties from ten percent all the
way up to fifty percent. Trump explicitly linked this action
to what he called a witch hunt against his ideological ally,
former President Jayir Bolsonaro. I mean, this isn't subtle, is it.
It's a clear statement that the tariff was political punishment.
(03:50):
And furthermore, the US government simultaneously sanctioned numerous Brazilian officials,
including Supreme Court Justice Alexandra de Morees. Justice to Marris
for listeners who might need a reminder, has been the
key judicial figure overseeing the investigation and conviction of Bolsonaro,
who received a twenty seven year sentence for his role
(04:11):
in an attempted coup. Sanctioning the chief judicial figure in
that case, that signals a deep structural political intervention. So
I maintain that the rapid negotiation commitment is probably just
an attempt at tactical decompression, a necessity really, because the
tariffs were starting to inflict too much reciprocal damage. And interestingly,
(04:34):
according to the executive secretary for Brazil's Foreign Ministry, the
name Bolsonaro wasn't even mentioned during the meeting. Avoiding the
root cause doesn't mean the political tension has vanished. It
just means they shelved it temporarily to relieve some of
the economic pressure.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
Well, that brings us to him a fundamental point of contention.
Then doesn't it the true nature of that July Terrifike
You insist it was purely political punishment to design for leverage.
Now I acknowledge the political noise, that witch hunt rhetoric, yes,
but I challenge you, how do you reconcile that harsh,
sudden escalation of fifty percent with what the Foreign Minister
(05:13):
Maro Vieira announced his ambition to conclude bilateral negotiations addressing
specific sectors in a few weeks. I mean, if this
were purely punitive, designed only to exert influence, why the immediate,
practical and highly detailed shift toward sector by sector trade
resolution that suggests economic pragmatism has rapidly superseded political aggression.
(05:38):
Wouldn't you say?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
The aggressive escalation from ten percent to fifty percent, that
is precisely what defines it as political punishment, designed to
inflict maximum pain, not just adjust some trade imbalance. Standard
trade negotiation uses incremental tariffs. This was a shock tactic,
and you cite the Foreign Minister's option sure, but let's
(06:01):
not forget Brazil also requested a pause in tariffs while
the talks proceed. They are clearly reacting to crippling political
pressure exerted through an economic tool.
Speaker 6 (06:11):
Okay, but the mechanism, and let's look at the mechanism
of this leverage. As you said, the tariffs weren't some
kind of misstep. They were powerful, targeted actions. We're already
seeing the real world economic fallout that resulted from that
political action. The higher US duties have immediately begun reshaping
the global beef trade. Brazil is a massive beef exporter, right,
(06:32):
and suddenly facing a fifty percent tariff pushed up prices
in the US domestic market, and critically, it encouraged trade triangulation.
This means Brazilian beef is being routed through third countries,
perhaps Mexico, potentially entering the US under different rules that
destabilizes the market further. This level of market disruption achieved
almost instantaneously, proves the tariffs were powerful political leverage, not
(06:56):
just some abstract economic calculation.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
I appreciate the folks on leverage, but it seems that
leverage backfired economically, didn't it? For both sides? Requiring this
immediate de escalation. My point is that the moment this
political action began inflicting genuine, widespread economic harm, disrupting US
supply chains, creating unnecessary costs for US consumers alongside the
(07:19):
damage to Brazil, well, the motivation for resolution shifted back
to commerce Foreign Minister Vieira's desire to conclude specific sector
negotiations in a few weeks. That shows that the political
rhetoric is being sidelined for tangible, mutually beneficial trade results.
Leaders are often forced to prioritize stability when key national
(07:41):
economic sectors start to face collapse forced pragmatism. Perhaps let's
pivot slightly, then, to the credibility of this immediate resolution
commitment versus the deep geopolitical tension that clearly exists. If
the political divide were truly insurmountable, why these highly public,
high level diplomatic overtures at the Assion summit, And more
(08:03):
than that, why would Lula proactively offer to mediate between
the US and Venezuela Right now? That offer isn't just
a friendly gesture. Surely it indicates that Brazil is seeking
to deepen and normalize the overall bilateral relationship far beyond
just the immediate tariff dispute. They seem to be trading
geopolitical goodwill for economic stability, suggesting genuine momentum toward full normalization.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Well, I'm skeptical that trading geopolitical favors really masks the
deep underlying friction here. The Venezuela mediation offer. Yes, it's
complex maneuvering, but it could very well serve as a
tactical distraction, couldn't it. It allows Lula to appear globally
constructive while potentially trying to extract a trade concession without
(08:46):
yielding on the core issue, which is Brazilian judicial autonomy
and the whole Bolscenaro situation.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
But doesn't it show good faith?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Perhaps, but we cannot forget the ideological alignment that fueled
this crisis in the first place. Member bolt In, our
supporters rided in a way very similar to Trump supporters
on January sixth. This confirms a shared polarizing ideological backdrop
that the US foreign policy establishment has not truly separated
(09:14):
from trade policy. I mean, look at those explicit sanctions
on key Brazilian judicial officials. The political entanglement runs far
too deep. I think for a quick trade handshake. To
simply raise it.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
That ideological link is certainly important historical context. I grant
you that, But diplomacy, by its nature requires leaders to
move past domestic politics, doesn't it, especially when significant national
trade interests are at stake. Insisting that the political linkage
must dictate the trade outcome might satisfy an ideological analysis,
(09:48):
but it kind of fails to recognize the practical reality
of governments. I think the agreement to get negotiating teams
working immediately to search for sector specific solutions that seems
to override the political baggage of past sanctions. Economic necessity
simply demands the urgency. The only measure that truly matters
now is whether the negotiating teams meet and make progress,
(10:10):
not whether the leaders are ideological allies.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
I respectfully disagree that the political baggage can be simply
discarded like that. Let's try and define success and failure here.
True success, certainly from Lula's perspective, requires lifting sanctions on
specific officials like Justice de Marias, not just pausing the
fifty percent tariffs, which is the immediate relief Brazil requested.
(10:34):
If those core political sanctions, the very punitive measures linked
by Trump himself to the witch hunt remain in place. Well,
then the trade agreement is merely conditional, isn't it. It
remains leverage, a kind of political sort of domicles, ready
to be reimposed if the relationship deteriorates, or if the
political status of Bolsonaro somehow changes down the line.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Okay, that's a compelling argument regarding the definition of long
term success. But I would argue that resolving the fifty
percent tariff rate is still an essential, achievable step forward
even if the individual sanctions persist for longer. Immediate progress
on the tariffs benefits both nations economies and stabilizes key sectors,
(11:17):
particularly that disrupted US beef market. We talked about stabilizing
supply chains and removing that fifty percent financial chokehold. That's
a concrete, necessary, victory dictated by commerce, regardless of the
persistent political tensions surrounding individual officials. It's an incremental, practical victory.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Incremental, yes, but its political conditionality means it is inherently precarious.
If the negotiations merely result in, say a temporary suspension
of tariffs, while the sanctions on justice de maras remain
firmly in place, then the underlying dynamic hasn't fundamentally changed.
The US simply retains economic leverage rooted in political interference.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
So as we conclude, I must reiterate that the willingness
to negotiate quickly and constructively, despite the known severity of
the political differences, including those specific US sanctions on Brazilian officials,
that strongly highlights the priority of economic stability. The statements
made by both leaders at the summit indicate a strong
shared interest in the pursuit of mutually beneficial trade deals,
(12:25):
and the commitment to immediate action shows that practical commercial
steps are being prioritized over continued ideological grievances.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Hmmm, that's a sophisticated defense of the economic necessity position.
I'll give you that, but I still maintain that the
speed of negotiation doesn't erase the core problem. The origin
of this tariff dispute was explicitly tied by President Trump
to the political persecution, as he saw it, of his
allied Bolsonaro, and the political sanctions against key officials confirm
(12:53):
this intent until those deeper political linkages are addressed, until
the US removes its targeted sanctions on Brazilian legal and
governmental figures. Any trade resolution will stand on precarious politically
conditional ground. It can easily be weaponized again in the future.
Speaker 7 (13:08):
The source material. Then it really presents a clear tension
immediate economic necessity driven by the practical damage these tariffs
are doing, fighting against the deep seated political rivalry that
establish the tariffs in the first place.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Absolutely, the path forward requires carefully watching whether these negotiations
proceed quickly and finalize a stable agreement, as Minister Vieira hoped,
or whether they stall stall over the fundamental issue of
sanctions and political interference that continues to color the entire
bilateral relationship. That political ghost of Bolsonaro I suspect will
(13:42):
hover over every trade document signed.
Welcome to the debate. Our discussion today, Well, it focuses
on the critical high stakes diplomatic maneuvering that followed that
recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Brazil's President
Louis Inacio Lula de Silva. This was on the fringes
of the Aussion Summit, and you know, this meeting was
really billed as the key to unlocking those punitive US tariffs,
(00:23):
specifically that huge jump to a fifty percent duty that
have really destabilized the US Brazil trade relationship lately. High
stakes indeed, exactly, So the central question before US is
pretty profound. I think, given the agreement for immediate high
level negotiations, does this outcome signal a genuine shared political will,
(00:46):
a will to prioritize economic normalization and remove these frankly
stinging tariffs. Or is this interaction merely a short term
diplomatic tactic, you know, just managing deeper, unresolved political conflict
that stem explicitly from US sanctions and that ongoing legal
drama surrounding former President jay Or Bolsonaro. Now, I'll be
(01:08):
taking the position that the overwhelming economic comparatives are now
driving this resolution forward. Basically, forcing both sides toward practical
trade focused outcomes.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
And I come at it from a different angle. While yes,
the public focus is on the diplomatic handshake and the
promise of immediate talks, I believe the core of this
dispute remains fundamentally political. And this means any rapid trade resolution, well,
it's going to stand on pretty precarious ground. That massive
tariff hike wasn't some standard trade adjustment. It was I argue,
(01:42):
deliberately designed as targeted political leverage. And the speed of
the negotiations that feels more like tactical decompression to me,
not really a sign that the root cause has been addressed.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Okay, but I see a definite shift in priorities based
on what came out of the summit, the constructive tone
adopted by both leaders and that explicit agreement to start
talks immediately. That demonstrates a practical desire to put commerce
and economic stability first, you know, overriding these deep ideological
and political riffs. Lula himself described the meeting as great,
(02:15):
and crucially, he stated that their teams would convene immediately
to resolve the tariffs and the associated sanctions that immediacy
for me is key. It indicates a prioritization of action
over well over grievance. H And we also saw President
Trump focusing forward, didn't we stating he expected to make
(02:36):
pretty good deals for both countries. That signals a mutual
focus on trade benefits rather than you know, settling old
political scores. And we have to remember the economic backdrop here.
Lula has long criticized his tariff hike, pointing to the
historical and significant four hundred and ten billion dollar US
trade surplus with Brazil over the past fifteen years. He
views this tarif hike as an economic mistake that simply
(02:59):
must be crit if tu ygotiation because frankly, it harms
both supply chains, not just Brazil's bottom line.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
That's a thoughtful analysis of the economic pressure points, certainly,
But I have to frame the entire episode differently. The
economic dispute just cannot be separated from the underlying political conflict.
In fact, I'd argue the former is simply a tool
of the latter. The US Brazil economic relationship is right
now being dictated by political leverage tied directly to Brazil's
(03:28):
internal legal dramas. Okay, duties from ten percent all the
way up to fifty percent. Trump explicitly linked this action
to what he called a witch hunt against his ideological ally,
former President Jayir Bolsonaro. I mean, this isn't subtle, is it.
It's a clear statement that the tariff was political punishment.
(03:50):
And furthermore, the US government simultaneously sanctioned numerous Brazilian officials,
including Supreme Court Justice Alexandra de Morees. Justice to Marris
for listeners who might need a reminder, has been the
key judicial figure overseeing the investigation and conviction of Bolsonaro,
who received a twenty seven year sentence for his role
(04:11):
in an attempted coup. Sanctioning the chief judicial figure in
that case, that signals a deep structural political intervention. So
I maintain that the rapid negotiation commitment is probably just
an attempt at tactical decompression, a necessity really, because the
tariffs were starting to inflict too much reciprocal damage. And interestingly,
(04:34):
according to the executive secretary for Brazil's Foreign Ministry, the
name Bolsonaro wasn't even mentioned during the meeting. Avoiding the
root cause doesn't mean the political tension has vanished. It
just means they shelved it temporarily to relieve some of
the economic pressure.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
Well, that brings us to him a fundamental point of contention.
Then doesn't it the true nature of that July Terrifike
You insist it was purely political punishment to design for leverage.
Now I acknowledge the political noise, that witch hunt rhetoric, yes,
but I challenge you, how do you reconcile that harsh,
sudden escalation of fifty percent with what the Foreign Minister
(05:13):
Maro Vieira announced his ambition to conclude bilateral negotiations addressing
specific sectors in a few weeks. I mean, if this
were purely punitive, designed only to exert influence, why the immediate,
practical and highly detailed shift toward sector by sector trade
resolution that suggests economic pragmatism has rapidly superseded political aggression.
(05:38):
Wouldn't you say?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
The aggressive escalation from ten percent to fifty percent, that
is precisely what defines it as political punishment, designed to
inflict maximum pain, not just adjust some trade imbalance. Standard
trade negotiation uses incremental tariffs. This was a shock tactic,
and you cite the Foreign Minister's option sure, but let's
(06:01):
not forget Brazil also requested a pause in tariffs while
the talks proceed. They are clearly reacting to crippling political
pressure exerted through an economic tool.
Speaker 6 (06:11):
Okay, but the mechanism, and let's look at the mechanism
of this leverage. As you said, the tariffs weren't some
kind of misstep. They were powerful, targeted actions. We're already
seeing the real world economic fallout that resulted from that
political action. The higher US duties have immediately begun reshaping
the global beef trade. Brazil is a massive beef exporter, right,
(06:32):
and suddenly facing a fifty percent tariff pushed up prices
in the US domestic market, and critically, it encouraged trade triangulation.
This means Brazilian beef is being routed through third countries,
perhaps Mexico, potentially entering the US under different rules that
destabilizes the market further. This level of market disruption achieved
almost instantaneously, proves the tariffs were powerful political leverage, not
(06:56):
just some abstract economic calculation.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
I appreciate the folks on leverage, but it seems that
leverage backfired economically, didn't it? For both sides? Requiring this
immediate de escalation. My point is that the moment this
political action began inflicting genuine, widespread economic harm, disrupting US
supply chains, creating unnecessary costs for US consumers alongside the
(07:19):
damage to Brazil, well, the motivation for resolution shifted back
to commerce Foreign Minister Vieira's desire to conclude specific sector
negotiations in a few weeks. That shows that the political
rhetoric is being sidelined for tangible, mutually beneficial trade results.
Leaders are often forced to prioritize stability when key national
(07:41):
economic sectors start to face collapse forced pragmatism. Perhaps let's
pivot slightly, then, to the credibility of this immediate resolution
commitment versus the deep geopolitical tension that clearly exists. If
the political divide were truly insurmountable, why these highly public,
high level diplomatic overtures at the Assion summit, And more
(08:03):
than that, why would Lula proactively offer to mediate between
the US and Venezuela Right now? That offer isn't just
a friendly gesture. Surely it indicates that Brazil is seeking
to deepen and normalize the overall bilateral relationship far beyond
just the immediate tariff dispute. They seem to be trading
geopolitical goodwill for economic stability, suggesting genuine momentum toward full normalization.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Well, I'm skeptical that trading geopolitical favors really masks the
deep underlying friction here. The Venezuela mediation offer. Yes, it's
complex maneuvering, but it could very well serve as a
tactical distraction, couldn't it. It allows Lula to appear globally
constructive while potentially trying to extract a trade concession without
(08:46):
yielding on the core issue, which is Brazilian judicial autonomy
and the whole Bolscenaro situation.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
But doesn't it show good faith?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Perhaps, but we cannot forget the ideological alignment that fueled
this crisis in the first place. Member bolt In, our
supporters rided in a way very similar to Trump supporters
on January sixth. This confirms a shared polarizing ideological backdrop
that the US foreign policy establishment has not truly separated
(09:14):
from trade policy. I mean, look at those explicit sanctions
on key Brazilian judicial officials. The political entanglement runs far
too deep. I think for a quick trade handshake. To
simply raise it.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
That ideological link is certainly important historical context. I grant
you that, But diplomacy, by its nature requires leaders to
move past domestic politics, doesn't it, especially when significant national
trade interests are at stake. Insisting that the political linkage
must dictate the trade outcome might satisfy an ideological analysis,
(09:48):
but it kind of fails to recognize the practical reality
of governments. I think the agreement to get negotiating teams
working immediately to search for sector specific solutions that seems
to override the political baggage of past sanctions. Economic necessity
simply demands the urgency. The only measure that truly matters
now is whether the negotiating teams meet and make progress,
(10:10):
not whether the leaders are ideological allies.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
I respectfully disagree that the political baggage can be simply
discarded like that. Let's try and define success and failure here.
True success, certainly from Lula's perspective, requires lifting sanctions on
specific officials like Justice de Marias, not just pausing the
fifty percent tariffs, which is the immediate relief Brazil requested.
(10:34):
If those core political sanctions, the very punitive measures linked
by Trump himself to the witch hunt remain in place. Well,
then the trade agreement is merely conditional, isn't it. It
remains leverage, a kind of political sort of domicles, ready
to be reimposed if the relationship deteriorates, or if the
political status of Bolsonaro somehow changes down the line.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Okay, that's a compelling argument regarding the definition of long
term success. But I would argue that resolving the fifty
percent tariff rate is still an essential, achievable step forward
even if the individual sanctions persist for longer. Immediate progress
on the tariffs benefits both nations economies and stabilizes key sectors,
(11:17):
particularly that disrupted US beef market. We talked about stabilizing
supply chains and removing that fifty percent financial chokehold. That's
a concrete, necessary, victory dictated by commerce, regardless of the
persistent political tensions surrounding individual officials. It's an incremental, practical victory.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Incremental, yes, but its political conditionality means it is inherently precarious.
If the negotiations merely result in, say a temporary suspension
of tariffs, while the sanctions on justice de maras remain
firmly in place, then the underlying dynamic hasn't fundamentally changed.
The US simply retains economic leverage rooted in political interference.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
So as we conclude, I must reiterate that the willingness
to negotiate quickly and constructively, despite the known severity of
the political differences, including those specific US sanctions on Brazilian officials,
that strongly highlights the priority of economic stability. The statements
made by both leaders at the summit indicate a strong
shared interest in the pursuit of mutually beneficial trade deals,
(12:25):
and the commitment to immediate action shows that practical commercial
steps are being prioritized over continued ideological grievances.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Hmmm, that's a sophisticated defense of the economic necessity position.
I'll give you that, but I still maintain that the
speed of negotiation doesn't erase the core problem. The origin
of this tariff dispute was explicitly tied by President Trump
to the political persecution, as he saw it, of his
allied Bolsonaro, and the political sanctions against key officials confirm
(12:53):
this intent until those deeper political linkages are addressed, until
the US removes its targeted sanctions on Brazilian legal and
governmental figures. Any trade resolution will stand on precarious politically
conditional ground. It can easily be weaponized again in the future.
Speaker 7 (13:08):
The source material. Then it really presents a clear tension
immediate economic necessity driven by the practical damage these tariffs
are doing, fighting against the deep seated political rivalry that
establish the tariffs in the first place.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Absolutely, the path forward requires carefully watching whether these negotiations
proceed quickly and finalize a stable agreement, as Minister Vieira hoped,
or whether they stall stall over the fundamental issue of
sanctions and political interference that continues to color the entire
bilateral relationship. That political ghost of Bolsonaro I suspect will
(13:42):
hover over every trade document signed.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.