Brazil slams NATO's Russia sanctions threats
Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday declared that Brazil, India, and China would face 'consequences' if they maintained business ties with Russia. He singled out oil and gas trade, and urged the countries' leaders to call Russian President Vladimir Putin and push him to engage 'serious[ly]' in Ukraine peace talks.
Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, formed in 2006 with Russia, India, and China. The economic bloc has since expanded to include South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Indonesia. Last year, BRICS approved a new 'partner country' status in response to growing membership interest shown by more than 30 countries.
Speaking to CNN Brazil on Friday, Vieira dismissed Rutte's comments as 'totally absurd,' pointing out that NATO is a military bloc, not a trade body, and that Brazil is not a member.
'Brazil, like all other countries, handles commercial matters bilaterally or within the WTO framework. Therefore, these statements by Rutte are utterly unfounded and irrelevant,' Vieira said.
He also noted that the EU – many of whose members are part of NATO – is a significant buyer of Russian energy. Despite efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas, the bloc still purchases large quantities of Russian LNG, accounting for 17.5% of its imports in 2024, industry data shows.
Rutte's warnings follow a similar threat from US President Donald Trump, who this week announced new military aid for Ukraine and threatened 100% tariffs on nations trading with Russia, unless a peace deal is reached within 50 days.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has criticized EU and NATO leaders for applying 'improper pressure' on Trump to adopt a hardline stance on the conflict.
Moscow says it remains open to negotiations with Kiev but is still waiting for a response on when talks will resume. The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul this year, but no breakthroughs were achieved, other than agreements to conduct large-scale prisoner exchanges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
A new nuclear age is coming, but this time it's different
The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe. The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore. Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest. But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's. In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational. Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path. Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power. Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation. We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack. This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China. In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world. Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity. A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control. Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil. Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it. The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced. In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance. But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger. We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin comments on possible Putin-Trump meeting in Beijing
Russia is ready to discuss holding talks between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump should the latter attend commemorative events in Beijing in September, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Monday. The Chinese capital will host a military parade on September 3 to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War Two. Putin has already accepted an invitation to attend. Speculation has grown over a possible meeting involving Putin, Trump, and Chinese President Xi Jinping during the celebrations. Japan's Kyodo News reported that the Chinese government has decided to invite Trump, while The Times suggested that Beijing is positioning itself to host a trilateral summit. Chinese officials have not confirmed the reports. 'If it so happens that [Trump] is there, then, of course, we cannot rule out that the question of the expediency of holding a meeting will be raised,' Peskov told reporters on Monday, noting that the Kremlin has not yet heard whether Trump is going to Beijing. The day before the Kremlin spokesman said that although a meeting between the two would definitely happen in the future, it would require a lot of preparation, and the time has not yet come. The speculation followed a phone call between Trump and Xi in June, during which the US president said he had been invited to visit China, though no date was specified. Putin and Trump have spoken by phone multiple times in recent months, focusing on efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict. Trump recently criticized Putin, accusing him of resisting a settlement. The Kremlin responded by saying it viewed the criticism calmly and intended to maintain dialogue with Washington. Beijing has continued to position itself as a neutral party in the Ukraine conflict. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called for a 'fair, lasting, and binding' peace agreement and urged all sides to prioritize a ceasefire and political dialogue. China has also expressed support for renewed direct talks between Moscow and Kiev. The last time Putin and Trump met in person was during the 2018 Russia-US Summit in Helsinki, Finland.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Israeli ambassador to leave Russia early
Israeli Ambassador to Russia Simona Halperin will leave her post early due to a new appointment, Russian media reported on Monday, citing embassy representatives. Her stay is expected to end this autumn. In a statement on X earlier on Monday, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Halperin's appointment as deputy director-general for Europe. The ministry did not specify whether she would be recalled from Russia immediately, but Israeli Embassy staff in Moscow told TASS she would remain until at least October. 'The ambassador will end her mission early, due to the fact that she received the position of head of the European Department at the Israeli Foreign Ministry… It is expected that Madam Ambassador will leave in October,' the representative said, adding that a replacement has not yet been named. Halperin, born in Riga in 1969, lived in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) before immigrating to Israel in 1976. She has served in the Israeli Foreign Ministry since 1993, holding posts in a number of foreign missions. She was appointed Israel's envoy to Russia in November 2024. Her tenure in Moscow began with controversy after she was summoned by the Russian Foreign Ministry for remarks made in an interview with Kommersant, in which she criticized Moscow's stance on the October 7 Hamas attacks. She condemned Russia for refusing to label Hamas a terrorist group, accusing officials of 'embracing' and 'rolling out the red carpet' for the militant group. Russia's Foreign Ministry called the remarks 'an extremely unfortunate start to a diplomatic mission.' Since then, however, her stay has been largely uneventful. In a later interview with RBK, Halperin praised the cooperation between Russia and Israel in securing the release of Hamas' hostages. Russia maintains official ties with both Israel and Palestine and promotes a balanced diplomatic stance, supporting the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Moscow has condemned both Hamas' 2023 attack on Israel and the civilian toll due to IDF strikes in Gaza.
