A long, long time ago, the US declared a strategic goal: to mess with the autonomic development of Brazil (and, after that, the whole Latin America.

It’s no coincidence that Trump recently declared that Brazil should return to being ‘America’s backyard’*.

For more than a century, the US doctrine has been based on the idea that Latin America should always be under their influence.

When the US Republicans finally succeeded in abolishing the Brazilian monarchy — the last one in LATAM — they believed that the US would see them as a source of inspiration and a saviour who would kindly help to solve all the country’s problems.

This is obviously far from the truth.

The brazilian Republicans were in power during Brazil’s transition from empire to republic, and they were faced with a bitter reality. The US was rather disinterested in this new regime. Even worse, it became clear that the sole objective was to expand US territory in Latin America.

Getúlio Vargas, the 14th and 17th president of Brazil (who had the infamous reputation of being an ally of Nazi Germany), promoted a rupture with the oligarchic republic that served the wishes of the US. The opposition then sought foreign intervention. If you follow the news, you may notice a recurring pattern: it’s the same strategy used by Bolsonaro’s militia now. Brazilian politicians would periodically travel to the US to beg for support in staging a coup.

Vargas was chaotic, but he did seem to support nationalism. At the same time, he kept the country in a ‘neutral’ position, opposing both US and URSS intervention.

Seeking to forge an independent path and improve negotiation leverage with both sides of the Cold War was a decisive moment in the US changing its partnership with Brazil for other countries in the region, such as Colombia and Venezuela.

Brazilian participation in the Second World War — a contradiction in itself, given that Vargas would rather have remained neutral — raised expectations of strong US support and investment in Brazilian industry. This didn’t happen, however, except for the CSN (the national steel company).

Popular frustration with US promises paved the way for the nationalism of João Goulart and Leonel Brizola. This new form of nationalism, seen by the US as radical, was perceived as a major strategic threat. Both presidents were monitored and their communications were bugged.

In 1964, a military coup occurred. They finally managed to gain US support since they believed that Brazilian nationalist bias would pose a threat to US interests in the region. The goal was to create local competitors and promote Brazil’s autonomous development.

Nevertheless, the military finally realised that US interests in Brazil were not the same as those in Europe under the Marshall Plan. The investments and innovations promised to the Western bloc against the communists never materialised in Brazil.

This fuelled frustration during a population boom, which in turn resulted in a large number of people living in poverty. This led the generals to adopt a more pragmatic approach to international relations, including reopening relations with communist China.

Ernesto Geisel was obsessed with development and championed the idea of ‘Grande Brasil’, seeking partnerships with countries with which the Brazilian dictatorship had no existing connections. This marked the beginning of the weakening of the military’s grip on power.

The gradual process of Brazil reopening during the 1970s was greatly influenced by the revolutionary wave that occurred in the Western bloc during the 1960s. This sparked popular discussions on anti-racism, gender and decolonisation. Leonel Brizola was the face of this revolution. This marked the beginning of a new left-wing party in Brazil. Inspired by May ’68 in France and the Communist uprising in Italy, PT gained traction.

There were two main groups in opposition to the military dictatorship that praised the US: The workers, who were isolationist and rejected any alignment, and the internationalists, who argued that Brazil should join the communist bloc.

The Communist Party and PT were clearly internationalists. Brizola was an isolationist who defended nationalism.

The lefties fought against the same adversary: the subservient right wing, corrupted by foreign influence, which would often use technology and support from Washington to increase internal tension in the country.

The Communist Party and the PT sought alliances with left-leaning countries, primarily the USSR, in the hope of combatting US intervention. Brizola was sceptical.

The workers believed that both the US and the USSR would exacerbate internal divisions and that this would impede the formation of a united workers’ group with the main goal of developing the nation.

Brizola allied himself with high-level businessmen, but did not form partnerships with leaders of the black and native movements. His main goal was to develop the poorer classes.

The dissolution of the USSR weakened the left’s foreign allies, affecting their ability to maintain a local dispute with right-wing US allies who also had Israeli technological support.

As the allies were a weakened force, the Brazilian left became more isolationist.

Nevertheless, the US continued to interfere in Latin America, and leaders such as Correa, Cristina, Chávez, Evo Morales, Humala, Castillo and Lula were imprisoned following coordinated interference by the US and its counter-intelligence apparatus.

During the 2000s, left-nationalists were falling victim to similar operations, where corruption allegations were selectively used to discredit those calling for national sovereignty.

Recently, US technology has caused US-style phenomena in Latin America, such as the rise of US puppets like Bukele, Milei and Bolsonaro. Fake news, mass shooting software and the manipulation of public opinion are still being used.

Bolsonaro was a low-level politician with no significant achievements, but after US influence, he was elected president (even then, he continued to speak out against electronic voting systems). He never hid the fact that he was a mediocre, ignorant man, but his controversial views turned into massive success — and right-wing views such as racism, classism and other problematic themes gained popularity. The same happened with Milei in Argentina.

So, it’s safe to say that US actions against Brazil are nothing new. They have been interfering in our internal affairs for decades. It’s the same old strategy: A group of politicians, judges and military personnel are co-opted and sell the nation for a low price.

The left is facing the same dilemma again: as Brizola discussed with communists and later with the PT, should we fight against US interference by denouncing it and appealing to Brazilian nationalism and patriotism, or should we seek international support?

Will a discourse of nationalism have any traction outside the left bubble? Would it be better to seek international support to balance the dispute?

Would China compromise some of their interests to support allies such as Brazil?

Paz entre nós, guerra aos senhores.

*America is a continent, not a country.