The Ukrainian Week spoke with Dr Vicente Ferraro of the University of São Paulo about the potential for peace initiatives from countries in the Global South, the role of Brazilian peacekeepers in Ukraine, Russia’s influence within BRICS, and the shifting global order in the wake of Donald Trump’s election as US president.
***
— Let’s begin with one of the most significant international moments. How do you view the clash between Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office? I know Brazil is attempting to bring together 17 countries, including Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey, to form a kind of coalition focused on developing a strategy for a peaceful resolution to the war.
— Despite Russia enjoying strong backing in academic and certain political circles, the majority of Brazilian society stands firmly with Ukraine. Most people view this as clear-cut aggression—unjust and imperialistic.
That said, I don’t believe Russia is genuinely interested in any kind of meaningful concessions. The peace it seeks is not a fair one; it’s a peace that allows Russia to claim Ukrainian territory. And what it controls now is simply not enough. Putin has his sights set on the entirety of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions.
— Even if Putin were to agree to concessions, I’m not sure we can count on him to honour any deal in the long term.
— Just look at what happened a month after he struck a deal with Yevgeny Prigozhin. Honestly, I’m quite pessimistic. I fear that under Trump, Ukraine will be pressured into signing a deeply unjust agreement—one that Putin, with Trump’s backing, will force Kyiv to accept.
There might be a ceasefire, but a lasting peace deal? That’s another story. It doesn’t mean Ukraine will ever recognise the occupied territories as part of Russia.
Instead, we’re likely to see a frozen conflict that will periodically erupt into open warfare. Sadly, this could drag on for decades.
— Do you think there’s any way to avoid this?
— Ultimately, it will depend largely on Europe, with Germany playing a pivotal role. I see it as the key political player.
— What about France? Could Macron influence Trump?
— No, I don’t think so. I don’t believe any European leader can sway him. Trump is incredibly unpredictable. I recently spoke with the German political scientist Andreas Umland, and he described Trump as a horse in a room—you never know which way he’ll jump.
France matters. The UK matters. Germany matters. But they need to be united, because Europe simply won’t be able to play the same role the US has in the past.
— So, would you say the US has effectively joined the club of Russian supporters? After all, during the UN General Assembly vote, Washington put forward its own resolution marking three years of war in Ukraine—one that was backed by Russia, China, North Korea, and the Kremlin’s allies.
— Let me start from the Global South’s perspective, particularly Brazil. Why doesn’t Brazil take a stronger stance against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine?
One reason is that in many Global South countries, including Brazil and other parts of Latin America, there’s this dominant view of the United States as an imperial power. From our point of view, American imperialism has been particularly strong in Latin America over the past decades, if not the last century.
The US has been behind coups, supported military dictatorships, and interfered in our domestic politics. So, the history of Latin America’s relationship with the US is complicated, to say the least.
The issue is that many academics and politicians, especially on the left, end up siding with Russia and Putin—not because they have an issue with Ukraine, but because they see the US as the true imperialist. They support Russia simply because it opposes the US. In reality, most of them know very little about Ukraine; their support for Russia is driven by the image Putin projects as a counter to what he presents as American imperialism.
At the same time, there are right-wing parties and politicians in both Latin America and Europe who view Russia favourably—not out of any particular anti-American sentiment, but because they see Putin as a conservative, a far-right leader.
What’s especially striking is how Russian foreign policy has adapted to these dynamics. In Latin America, Russia has won favour with left-wing parties by tapping into shared anti-American sentiment. But in Europe, it has aligned itself with right-wing politicians who oppose the European Union. Through Europe’s far-right, Russia has sought to deepen divisions within the West.
This is why Russia has cultivated ties with Trump. He’s a conservative who views China—not Russia—as the biggest threat to US global dominance. He believes the war in Ukraine is Europe’s problem, one that Europe should solve.
I think Trump’s strategy is to make concessions to Russia in order to pull it away from China. He might even be willing to accept Eastern Europe as Russia’s sphere of influence, just to improve relations with Moscow and keep it at arm’s length from Beijing.
– Yet, we now see China, Russia, and the US seemingly on the same side. There’s even a meme circulating on Ukrainian Facebook that goes: “Imagine being such a great nation that the three most powerful countries in the world unite against you.”
– I think Trump is trying to resurrect an era where global politics were dominated by major powers, each with its own sphere of influence—Russia, the US, and China. In this vision, the world is split into zones controlled by these powers, each claiming the right to make decisions for the globe. It’s an authoritarian, anti-democratic mindset. Trump exhibits authoritarian tendencies at home, and now he’s attempting to project that on the global stage.
But I believe this only accelerates the decline of American hegemony. In Brazil, there’s a strong sense that US dominance is waning. In 10 or 20 years, China could very well be the world’s leading power. If anything, Trump is hastening that shift.
That’s why BRICS is important to us—not because of Russia’s involvement, but because we see the centre of global power shifting from the US to China. China is now Brazil’s top economic partner, and its growing influence drives BRICS. For us, BRICS offers a platform to carve out our place in this new global order.
— Yes, but first, there’s Russian political influence within BRICS, and its members are expected to support Moscow. Second, Chinese companies are operating in occupied Donetsk and Luhansk, bringing in equipment, developing abandoned mines and quarries. China is leveraging its economic potential thanks to Russia’s occupation of part of Ukraine. And the extracted resources aren’t just sold to BRICS countries but also to the Western world.
— I understand your point—it’s unfair. And while many in Brazil believe the world order is shifting, I don’t share that view. I keep the war in Ukraine in mind, and I’m pessimistic about it. I don’t think the global system is truly changing; it’s just getting new bosses. The order itself will remain the same—unjust, unequal, imperialist, and colonial. And unfortunately, Trump is part of this new wave of authoritarianism.
To understand global politics, we need to look at domestic politics across different countries. It’s clear we’re witnessing a new wave of authoritarianism in several places, including the United States. And this rise of authoritarian leaders is shaping regimes that, in global politics, exhibit the same aggressive and autocratic behaviour.
You saw how Trump suggested he could support the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza. It’s similar to what Russia is doing in Ukraine—forcing people from their homes, seizing their land. And I believe Putin was one of the first in this new wave of global authoritarianism.
Now everything is as it was originally! Let me know if you need any other adjustments.
I’ve spent years studying Russia’s political system and the war in Ukraine, and I believe it has far more to do with Russia’s internal politics than with NATO. Ukraine wasn’t even close to joining the alliance. From the outset, Putin has used wars to consolidate his power. His first major move was the war in Chechnya, which he skillfully leveraged to strengthen his political regime. The authoritarian system he’s built in Russia is deeply rooted in that conflict.
Putin’s narrative has always been that Russia would fall apart like the Soviet Union if the people didn’t unite behind him. To keep the country intact and powerful, he argued, it needed a strong, unyielding leader—his leadership.
For Putin, war is a constant necessity. It keeps the Russian people mobilised, bolsters his political standing, and serves as a justification for the repression he imposes at home.
– I wanted to ask about Brazilian President Lula da Silva’s recent statements. He’s criticised NATO and the European Union for their partial responsibility in the war in Ukraine.
– Lula has long had a good relationship with Putin, and over the years, he hasn’t always taken a fair stance on Ukraine. However, more recently, he’s suggested that Ukraine should be included in the negotiations. Brazil also criticised Trump for not inviting Ukraine to the negotiating table.
Brazil is generally opposed to interfering in the affairs of other nations. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began, Brazil has voted against Russia, which means, at least on paper, it stands against invasions. This aligns with Brazil’s anti-imperialist foreign policy.
As for Lula’s comments, there are three main reasons behind them. The first is the perception of the United States as an imperialist power, as I’ve already mentioned.
The second reason is that Brazil grapples with significant social issues—inequality, favelas. As a result, many people, including politicians and scholars, have a romanticised view of the Soviet Union. They believe it was successful in tackling these social problems, and some even think that Russia is somehow a continuation of the Soviet Union.
I try to challenge this perspective by emphasising that Putin is a right-wing politician, not a communist. Unfortunately, many still have a skewed understanding of Putin, the Soviet Union, and modern-day Russia.
The third reason is that Brazil simply doesn’t have enough specialists focused on Ukraine. We have experts on Russia, though. When the war began, the media turned to those specialising in Russian affairs, and many of them have a Russophile outlook, believing Russia is always the victim of history, not the aggressor.
— It’s striking how today’s Russia doesn’t seek to restore Sovietism. Instead, they’ve managed to blend Tsarism, Stalinism, and fanatical Orthodoxy into something uniquely imperial. It’s all about continuing imperialism, just with a new face. They even tried to canonise Stalin, and when the church refused, they simply started painting him on icons.
— For me, Putin’s ideology isn’t about communism or terrorism; it’s fascism.
When he references the communist past, it’s not to advocate for socialism or the economic system. He’s using it to conjure an image of Russia as a great power. He doesn’t want to return to a socialist system. What he wants is to revive the political might and influence Russia once had. So, his goal is not to restore communism, but to revive the power of the Soviet Union.
Putin is mobilising the population by framing opposition as treason—if you’re against him, you’re against Russia, and you must be destroyed.
In the same way Hitler expanded his empire, Putin is expanding Russia through occupation. He’s pushing an agenda of ethnocide in the occupied territories—trying to erase the Ukrainian identity, banning the Ukrainian language, and saying, “You’re no longer Ukrainian; now you’re Russian.”
— Regarding our discussion on Brazil’s peace initiatives, there’s been a proposal to deploy Brazilian and Chinese peacekeepers to Ukraine. China has already rejected it. What about Brazil’s stance?
— I haven’t seen Brazil’s official position on this in recent days, but we do have a history of peacekeeping missions, like in Haiti and parts of Africa. The Brazilian army has significant experience with UN peacekeeping operations. I think Brazil would be open to such a proposal, but only if it was under the UN’s umbrella.
For this to happen, Russia, China, and all the Security Council members would need to agree. It would be a positive move for Brazil, though, to try and play a role in helping resolve this situation.
— We’ve already had experience with OSCE observers, where some things were noticed, and others were “overlooked.” The latter often worked in Russia’s favour. Won’t Brazilian peacekeepers be biased, given Russia is one of Brazil’s key BRICS partners?
— Well, first of all, although we have a left-wing government in Brazil with some ties to Russia, and there’s an anti-American rhetoric, our relationship with the US isn’t all that bad. Yes, it was worse during Trump’s first term, and it has soured again recently, but under Biden, things had started to normalise.
Secondly, the Brazilian military has a pro-American faction. There are many in the armed forces who see the US as an important ally in South America and believe the American military is crucial for regional stability. So, I don’t think the Brazilian army will lean towards a pro-Russian stance.
And importantly, if Brazil were to conduct a mission under the UN umbrella, it would be under the supervision of not just Russia and China, but also the US, France, and the UK.
— From the discussions taking place right now, it seems that the US and Russia want to divide Ukraine — its territories and resources. Would Brazil have an interest in taking a piece of the pie?
— No, I don’t think so, especially given our past peacekeeping missions. For example, we had a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, and I wouldn’t say Brazil used those military missions to pursue any economic interests.
I believe Brazil sees peacekeeping missions more as a way to bolster its diplomatic image on the global stage — to increase its soft power. It’s about positioning Brazil as a trustworthy partner, showing that we’re a democracy committed to peacefully resolving major global issues.
So, while we do have an interest, it’s a different kind of interest — one that’s not economic, but more about building credibility and trust internationally.
— By the way, in your opinion, how should Ukraine build communication with Brazil and other countries of the Global South?
— I think it’s crucial for Ukraine to highlight the common ground. For instance, Brazil has dealt with American imperialism, and Ukraine is facing Russian imperialism.
In fact, it’s even worse for Ukraine because you’re in the middle of a war. So, I believe Ukraine should frame the situation as a fight against imperialism. It’s a struggle for national liberation, for self-determination, and for preserving Ukrainian sovereignty. This is fundamentally a war against imperialism.
— By the way, in your opinion, how should Ukraine build communication with Brazil and other countries of the Global South?
— I think it’s important for Ukraine to highlight the common ground. For instance, Brazil has faced American imperialism, and Ukraine has been confronting Russian imperialism.
But you’re in an even worse situation because you’re in the middle of a war. So, it’s crucial for Ukraine to frame this as a struggle against imperialism. It’s a fight for national liberation, self-determination, and the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty. Ultimately, this is a war against imperialism.
— Brazil has a large Ukrainian diaspora. Brazilians love Ukrainian culture—just think of the series Soulless (Desalma), which is based on Ukrainian mythology. How does the Ukrainian diaspora behave in Brazil today? How serious is its influence on society and the Brazilian government?
— I think Ukraine could really leverage its diaspora to increase its soft power in Brazil. The Ukrainian community is primarily based in the state of Paraná, with a city called Prudentópolis having a large Ukrainian population. Other nearby towns also host significant Ukrainian communities.
However, these areas are quite distant from Brazil’s political and economic hubs like São Paulo, Rio, and Brasília. Because of this geographical distance, it’s challenging for the diaspora to directly influence decision-making.
That said, the Ukrainian government could find ways to amplify the visibility of this community and ensure that Ukrainian voices are heard more clearly in Brazil.
— Could the resolution to the war in Ukraine, for example, be Putin’s death or a change of government in Russia?
— I don’t think so, but authoritarian regimes can be highly unpredictable.
Take Bashar al-Assad in Syria, for example. He was re-elected with an overwhelming 95% of the vote, yet just a few months later, his regime seemed to be on the verge of collapse. No one expected that. People didn’t pour into the streets to back him; instead, they celebrated the fall of his government.
These authoritarian regimes often try to project a sense of massive support, but the reality is that we can’t truly know how much backing they actually have.
I think even Putin himself doesn’t really know. Sure, there are opinion polls from the Levada Center, but imagine if you were living in Russia and someone stopped you in the street or called you up and asked, “Do you support Putin?” — would you say no?
That’s why I believe even Putin is unsure of his real support base. It’s why he relies so heavily on repression. He’s constantly worried about the possibility of a coup, so he needs that legitimacy. The war in Ukraine serves as his ideological anchor—it’s the narrative that unites people and justifies his grip on power, all under the banner of protecting Russia.
