Rubens Ricupero, Prêmio Machado de Assis, da ABL - Daniel Afonso da Silva

 

The Machado de Assis Award 2025

• 02/07/2025

• PARTNERS • GEOPOLITICS • HISTORY • LITERATURE

By DANIEL AFONSO DA SILVA*

Diplomat, professor, historian, interpreter and builder of Brazil, polymath, man of letters, writer. As it is not known who comes first. Rubens, Ricupero or Rubens Ricupero

1.

Rubens Ricupero has just been awarded the Machado de Assis Prize. The highest honor of the Brazilian Academy of Letters for the body of work of an author. Surely the greatest couplet of its kind in the country. Which, from now on, leads the laureate to grey of the authors of immortal works in Brazil.

Raising him to the company of the unforgettable Augusto Meyer (1902-1970), Erico Veríssimo (1905-1975), Câmara Cascudo (1898-1986), Gilberto Freyre (1900-1987), Cecilia Meireles (1901-1964), Hermes de Lima (1902-1978), Thales de Azevedo (1904-1995), Mario Quintana (1906-1994), Raquel de Queiroz (1910-2003), Dinah Silveira de Queiroz (1911-1982), Antonio Candido de Mello e Souza (1918-2017), Rubem Fonseca (1925-2020), Carlos Heitor Cony (1926-2018), Ferreira Gullar (1930-2016), Marina Colassanti (1937-2025), Ana Maria Machado, Adélia Prado and others. Prestigious place. Masterful achievement. Incomparable award. At its height. Brilliant.

Diplomacy in the construction of Brazil, from 2017, had earned him the Senator José Ermírio de Moraes award for best book of the year. But it was Memoirs, from 2024, which placed him once and for all in the pantheon.

Memoirs has various attributes, many of which have not yet been fully analyzed or explored. But its most charming and impressive aspect, which surely weighed heavily in the Academy's decision, lies in its ability to humanize its author. Whoever reads or rereads Memoirs with some calm he notices the emergence of Rubens in front of Ricupero. Of the artist in front of the state servant.

Do man of letters in front of the distinguished diplomat, ambassador, high-ranking national and international official. It is seen, in Memoirs, Rubens in body and soul. Rubens son, grandson, husband, father and grandfather. Rubens reader. With eyes worn out from life marinating the art of writing. Immense writer. Now recognized by this award. The greatest of all. Machado de Assis.

To justify the award, the president of the Academy, Merval Pereira, stated that the laureate's body of work combines "literary merit and a public contribution of historical relevance to the country." All true. Which deserves more polish. This is the reunion of the Baron of Rio Branco (1845-1912) with Machado de Assis (1839-1908). It is also the first time that a full-fledged diplomat and tout court receives this award.

João Guimarães Rosa (1908-1967) received it in 1961. Raul Bopp (1898-1984) in 1977. But neither of them stood out purely as heirs of the baron. Both crushed the diplomat within the man of letters.

Guimarães Rosa producing geniuses like sagarana(1946) Dance Corps (1956) e Great Sertão: Veredas(1956). Raul Bopp remains the longest-lived and most impeccable poet of the 1922 Art Week. Thus, there is no space left for other memories or recollections.

2.

Rubens Ricupero, in turn, was certainly one of the greatest and most faithful followers of the Baron's precepts. A devotee of the diplomacy of knowledge, he took diplomatic alchemy to the highest levels of excellence, renewal and transmission. Becoming a consummate diplomat. Ambassador and minister of state. High-ranking official. In the style of the people of Rua Larga. In the style of the Baron. Mobilizing intelligence, dedication and imagination in the scrutiny of gestures and looks.

By dedicating himself to the arts and letters to achieve perfection in his craft. By becoming truly cultured and erudite. By going far beyond just writing, speaking and acting. By becoming a historian. Then, an interpreter of Brazil. And, finally, a builder of Brazil.

It is not known for sure when such a person is born. Diplomat, professor, historian, interpreter and builder of Brazil, polymath, man of letters, writer. Just as it is not known who comes first: Rubens, Ricupero or Rubens Ricupero.

In any case, there seem to be at least two points of no return in his life. One in 1937, when he was born. Another in 1958, when he entered the Rio Branco Institute.

Starting with the second. It fell on a Saturday, September 6, 1958, the beginning of the Institute's admission tests. Brazil was flowing in glory. The Brazilians, in rejoicing. Feola's team set the tone. Pelé, Garrincha, Didi, Nilton Santos had done what they had done that July: 5-2 against the Swedish hosts at Råsunda. Making the country wear football boots. Calming its demons. Mitigating its complexes. Training its mourning. Letting people know that, yes: the martyrdom of 1954, of the farewell to Getúlio Vargas, was still being felt.

But, on the contrary, the misfortune of the Maracanazo Uruguayan lay in the past. Far and distant. Remote. Irretrievable. Without meaning or reason. “The World Cup is ours/With a Brazilian, no one can do it”. This is the motto of the song. Sung, continuously, at the top of the lungs. Whistled. Mentalized and experienced as catharsis and outlet. Releasing the contained scream imposed by misfortunes that now no longer exist. “Hey, eh, golden squadron/They’re good at samba, they’re good at leather.”

Brasilia was made. Belém-Brasília. Cinema Novo. Bossa Nova. João Gilberto (1931-2019). Chega de saudade. Augusto Boal (1931-2009), Gianfrancesco Guarnieri (1934-2006), Experimental Theater. Abstract vision at the Biennial. Zoo in São Paulo. Archdiocese in Aparecida. Furnas in Minas Gerais. Pan-American Operation in Washington. Sudene in the Northeast. More Ford and more Volkswagen in Brazil. Roads and more roads. Modernization, industrialization, internationalization. Goals Plan in action. JK years. Enthusiasm. Inspiration. Joy. New bossa nova. All in one day. A kind of synthesis, meta-synthesis. That would guide Rubens Ricupero's entire trajectory.

3.

Starting with his approval, in first place, in those exams at the Rio Branco Institute in 1958, advancing to his debut as a diplomat in the brand new Brasília in 1961 and spreading over more than sixty years of attentive observation and confident participation in the national and international fabric of the epics of politics, culture and power in Brazil and the world.

He was an eyewitness to the resignation of President Jânio Quadros in 1961. He witnessed the bitterness of the moment with the leaders Afonso Arinos (1905-1990) and San Tiago Dantas (1911-1964). He perfected his diplomatic accuracy with João Augusto de Araújo Castro (1919-1975), Mario Gibson Barboza (1918-2007) and Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro (1918-2011).

He began his longest posting abroad at the Brazilian embassy in Vienna in 1963. He was then moved to Buenos Aires from 1966 to 1969. Then to Quito from 1969 to 1971. He returned to Brazil and Brasília from 1971 to 1974. He then moved to Washington from 1974 to 1977. He then returned to Brasília again from 1977 to 1987, to head the prestigious South American Division II of the Itamaraty until 1984.

To then become diplomatic advisor to President Tancredo de Almeida Neves (1910-1985) and inaugurate – on the victors’ ship – the New Republic in 1985. Organize and participate in the momentum international presidential term from January to February 1985. He was a special advisor to President José Sarney. He went to Geneva in 1987 as Brazilian ambassador. He was moved to the United States, also as Brazilian ambassador in Washington, in 1991.

Return to Brazil in 1993 to inaugurate the Ministry of the Environment and the Legal Amazon. Become Minister of Finance, guardian of the currency and apostle of the Real Plan in 1994. Return to be Brazil's ambassador abroad, this time in Rome, in 1995. Become a high-ranking official at the United Nations, as director of UNCTAD – United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, starting in 1995. Remain in this position, based in Geneva and traveling around the world, for almost ten years until retiring in 2004. Return to Brazil in 2004-2005.

To be professionally reborn as director of the School of Economics and International Relations at FAAP – Fundação Armando Álvares Penteado. To be reincarnated in Paulicéia, his native São Paulo. To see friends again. To reconnect with them. To renew experiences. To observe the slow, gradual, sure and catastrophic regression of the Brazilian political, economic and social reality from the Mensalão to the Petrolão. To witness the unequivocal frustration of the Dilma Rousseff presidency since the storms of June 2013. To note the agony of impeachment of 2016.

Participate in the offensive against the greater evil in 2018. Assist in the reconstruction of the lesser evil from 2022 onwards. Compose your primary work: Logbook. Tancredo's presidential trip (2010). Finishing his masterpiece: Diplomacy in the construction of Brazil (2017). Bequeathing his seminal writing: Memoirs (2024). And continue tirelessly offering your analyses, impressions and joy of living – summary of the JK years – to public opinion, to intelligentsia of the country and its numerous students from the Rio Branco Institute, the University of Brasília, the University of São Paulo and the like.

Incredible. Engaging. Moving. Which brings to mind an impression of the late ambassador Marcos Azambuja (1935-2025) who used to say that Rubens Ricupero – person, diplomat and artist – was one of the most extraordinary human beings he had ever met.

For some, this perception borders on exaggeration. Justified only as a sign of friendship. However, this distinguished Machado de Assis award has definitively disproved the skeptics and accentuated the value. The once mere heir of the baron has now also become a wizard heir. Only him. No one else.

Long live, dear Rubens Ricupero.[1]

*Daniel Afonso da Silva Professor of History at the Federal University of Grande Dourados. author of Far beyond Blue Eyes and other writings on contemporary international relations (APGIQ).

Nota

---

[1] I thank Ambassador Paulo Roberto de Almeida for his careful and generous reading of the first version of this text.

Fronteiras transformadas - Eduardo Felipe Matias (Revista Exame)

 

Fronteiras transformadas

Revista Exame, 22 Agosto 2025/ Notícias & Artigos/

Eduardo Felipe Matias

https://www.eliasmatias.com/publicacao/fronteiras-transformadas/1057

 

Meu livro A humanidade e suas fronteiras, de 2005, começava com uma parábola futebolística. Um jogo que se desenrolava de forma inesperada, em que treinadores eram forçados a mexer no time por pressões externas incomuns, vindas até de fora do estádio, e regras deixavam de ser respeitadas em partes do campo invisíveis ao árbitro, cuja autoridade também era confrontada por atores diversos à beira do gramado – em uma época em que não havia VAR.

Naquele momento, o mundo passava por transformações que o afastavam da ordem internacional até então vigente. Assim como os técnicos e o juiz daquela estranha partida, Estados soberanos perdiam autonomia e viam sua capacidade de ação reduzida por dois fatores: a globalização econômica – com o fortalecimento das empresas transnacionais e a integração dos mercados financeiros – e a revolução tecnológica, marcada pela consolidação do então chamado “ciberespaço”.

A crescente interdependência vinha acompanhada por uma globalização jurídica, com organizações de cooperação internacional e blocos de integração regional afetando a soberania estatal. Dimensões transnacionais e supranacionais eram incorporadas por meio de novos ordenamentos e instituições que expandiam suas fronteiras, enquanto as fronteiras estatais se tornavam mais permeáveis. Um novo paradigma despontava no horizonte: o da sociedade global.

De lá para cá, muita coisa mudou. Se o avanço da globalização e do multilateralismo sinalizava uma soberania compartilhada, vinte anos depois o cenário se inverteu. Choques sucessivos reergueram barreiras e devolveram aos Estados um papel central.

A crise de 2008 foi o primeiro sinal dessa inflexão. O colapso dos mercados financeiros revelou como turbulências podiam se propagar rapidamente por sistemas interconectados. O comércio internacional recuou 12% em 2009. O G-20 ocupou o centro do palco e garantiu estímulos equivalentes a 1,8% do PIB global, mostrando que, quando a situação apertava, eram os cofres nacionais que pagavam a conta.

Depois, a pandemia de covid-19 expôs a vulnerabilidade das cadeias globais de valor. O PIB mundial caiu 3,5% em 2020. Máscaras cirúrgicas tornaram-se moeda diplomática e cargas de equipamentos médicos foram desviadas em aeroportos. O modelo just-in-time perdeu espaço, sendo substituído por estratégias de redundância, com conceitos como reshoring e friend-shoring orientando políticas industriais e comerciais. O custo aumentou, mas a prioridade passou a ser reduzir riscos e reforçar a resiliência.

A invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia, em 2022, foi mais um golpe. Sanções coordenadas – como a exclusão de bancos russos do sistema SWIFT e limites ao preço do petróleo – mostraram que a interdependência pode ser usada como arma. O corte no fornecimento de gás à Europa evidenciou a facilidade com que laços econômicos se transformam em instrumentos de pressão geopolítica.

Nesse ambiente, organizações internacionais se enfraqueceram, e o multilateralismo recuou. A eleição de Donald Trump em 2016 desencadeou um populismo protecionista, caracterizado por barreiras alfandegárias e migratórias e pela revisão de acordos. Em seu segundo mandato, essas medidas têm se intensificado, com elevações tarifárias desordenadas que desorganizaram o comércio internacional, frearam investimentos, reacenderam a inflação e levaram a OCDE a prever o menor crescimento global desde a pandemia. A OMC, que poderia ajudar a reverter esse quadro, segue com seu órgão de apelação paralisado desde 2019.

Na integração regional, os resultados são variados. O NAFTA foi substituído pelo USMCA em 2020, mas as tarifas impostas pelos EUA ao México e Canadá causam instabilidade. O Brexit mostrou em 2016 que nem a União Europeia está imune a abalos. Antes disso, a crise da zona do euro entre 2010 e 2012 – com resgates de € 750 bilhões a Grécia, Irlanda, Portugal e Espanha – havia revelado a fragilidade de uma união monetária sem união fiscal. Poucos blocos surgiram, destacando-se o Acordo Abrangente e Progressivo para a Parceria Transpacífico (CPTPP) – assim rebatizado em 2018 após a saída dos EUA do pacto original – e a Área Continental Africana de Livre-Comércio (AfCFTA), em operação desde 2021. O Mercosul pouco progrediu.

A sustentabilidade ganhou destaque, e o Acordo de Paris, de 2015, tornou-se um marco no combate às mudanças climáticas, ao alinhar 195 países ao objetivo de limitar o aquecimento global a 1,5°C. Ainda assim, permanecemos distantes de metas compatíveis com essa ambição – contexto agravado pela segunda retirada dos EUA do acordo, anunciada no começo do ano.

Outro vetor central foi a ascensão da China, cujo PIB nominal saltou de US$ 2,3 trilhões em 2005 para mais de US$ 19 trilhões em 2025, a posicionando como segunda economia mundial. A iniciativa Cinturão e Rota, com mais de US$ 1 trilhão destinados a projetos de infraestrutura, amplia a presença chinesa em diversas regiões do planeta.

As previsões do livro sobre o aumento do protagonismo das empresas transnacionais e o impacto da internet se confirmaram, com as gigantes da tecnologia agora no topo do mercado. A economia migrou dos ativos tangíveis para os intangíveis, que em 2020 já representavam 90% do valor do S&P 500. O lançamento do iPhone, em 2007, popularizou os computadores de bolso. Com 5G, computação em nuvem e big data, emergiram plataformas digitais que intermedeiam informação, consumo e trabalho em escala global. Desde 2022, a IA generativa foi incorporada à vida das pessoas e vem reformulando modelos de negócios em ritmo acelerado.

As disputas geopolíticas passaram a envolver dados e algoritmos. Leis de residência de dados e a corrida por datacenters revelam as novas fronteiras da soberania digital. A concentração de poder nas big techs gerou respostas dos Estados. A União Europeia aprovou legislações como o Digital Markets Act e o AI Act, impondo regras de transparência algorítmica e gestão de riscos. Nos EUA, o Departamento de Justiça obteve vitórias em ações antitruste. Governos também reagem à expansão dos criptoativos – que pressionam a lógica da soberania monetária – por meio do desenvolvimento de moedas digitais próprias, testadas em mais de 130 jurisdições.

As fronteiras da humanidade continuam em transformação. O Estado procura mostrar que ainda é o dono da bola, e ameaça colocá-la debaixo do braço e acabar com o jogo se os outros não se comportarem. É a soberania nacional, que persiste e resiste. A interdependência, no entanto, segue incontornável. Nos últimos vinte anos, sua importância foi renovada pela necessidade de enfrentar questões como as mudanças climáticas e a inteligência artificial – que, por seu caráter transfronteiriço, exigem mais governança global, não menos. Daqui a duas décadas – ou quem sabe antes disso – saberemos se estivemos à altura desses desafios.

 

Eduardo Felipe Matias é autor dos livros A humanidade e suas fronteiras e A humanidade contra as cordas, ganhadores do Prêmio Jabuti. Doutor em Direito Internacional pela USP, foi visiting scholar nas universidades de Columbia, em NY, e Berkeley e Stanford, na California, e é sócio de Elias, Matias Advogados

 

Artigo originalmente publicado na edição de agosto de 2025 da revista Exame.

Acesse a imagem do artigo original aqui: PDF

Land for Peace? Ending the war Russia-Ukraine (WP)

The Washington Post, August 25. 2025

By Siobhán O’Grady, David L. Stern, Serhii Korolchuk and Anastacia Galouchka with Sammy Westfall

Land for peace? Ukrainians weigh frozen front line to placate Russia. Svitlana Batiukh sits with her grandchildren, Herman, 8, and Miroslava, 4, and two neighbors in the village of Petrivka Druha in Ukraine’s Donetsk region. She said they would probably stay even if the area was ceded to Russia. (Ed Ram/For The Washington Post) DONETSK REGION, Ukraine — Svitlana Batiukh and Alla Khoruzha have lived on opposite sides of the same street in this small village in Donetsk region for years — neighbors through peace and war. But as Russian troops draw closer and hammer areas just down the road, their views on how the war should end, and whether President Volodymyr Zelensky should forfeit Ukrainian territory, have diverged — an indication of how a possible peace deal with Moscow could strain Ukrainian society. Batiukh, 51, says she has too much to lose. If Russia took her village by force or through some peace deal, she would not give up her property and start anew. There is electricity and water. Their cattle still have room to roam. She wants Donetsk to stay in Ukraine but has little faith that will happen. Her family moved once before, then returned. This time they plan to stay put. “This is our land,” she said. “I just want this to be over with, so we won’t get bombed.” Across the street, Khoruzha, 72, said she would not accept any end to the war that resulted in Russia claiming even the parts of the eastern Donetsk region it currently controls. She remembers voting for Ukrainian independence from this village in 1991. She said she believes in Zelensky. But she would not support him if he moved toward freezing the lines where they are now. Her son, Valentin, was recently wounded fighting near Pokrovsk and will soon return to the front. “I want all of Donetsk to be Ukraine,” she said. Ukrainians are waking up to the likelihood that large portions of the country will be handed over to Russia under any scenario if a peace deal is reached. The only question is how much territory they will lose, and whether Moscow will receive additional land that it does not currently control. Based on what has come out of discussions so far, even in the best-case scenario, Ukraine is expected to lose the part of the country that Russia occupies at the moment — Crimea, two-thirds of Donetsk, portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and practically all of Luhansk. It is a jarring prospect for many. Until just recently, Ukrainian officials guaranteed that they would retake the occupied territories. But now they must face the probability that about 20 percent of the country will be locked behind the front line and ceded to Moscow for the foreseeable future, if not forever. “Emotionally, it’s a tragedy,” said Anton Grushetskyi, executive director of the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), which has been tracking Ukrainian attitudes toward various peace plans that have been floated. Advertisement   About 80 percent of Ukrainians when polled by KIIS last September said that they could drive Russian forces from the country if the West supported with sufficient weapons. Grushetskyi said that number has not moved significantly from last year. But Ukrainians have realized that they will not receive the weapons they need. Under the Biden administration, Ukraine’s army received expansive support, although Kyiv needed to lobby heavily to receive key weapons systems like F-16 fighter jets, which only arrived in small numbers after long delays. The Trump administration has reduced and at times frozen military aid to Ukraine, and sent signals that the days of generous assistance are over. “We see that it’s not possible to receive all needed support, especially with the current U.S. administration and certain states in Europe,” Grushetskyi said. “Ukrainians understand that we need to be much more pragmatic.” This pragmatism involves accepting that “we will not return the territories that are already occupied in the near future,” saidlawmaker Yehor Cherniev, who chairs Ukraine’s delegation to NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly. But Ukraine would never formally cede the territories, Cherniev said. “We are ready to wait, but we will never legally recognize them as Russian,” he said. “These territories will remain in the status of being occupied.” Not recognizing the territories as legally part of Russia allows the Ukrainian leadership to sidestep tricky legal questions, like holding a national referendum to approve changes to the country’s borders, as the constitution requires. According to Grushetskyi, the majority of Ukrainians share this view — that admitting Russia de facto controls the territories does not mean that they are lost forever. This allows them to swallow the bitter pill of permitting Russia to continue its occupation of millions of Ukrainian citizens. But Putin is insisting that Ukraine officially relinquish this territory as well as the remaining third of Donetsk that Russia has failed to take. This, Ukrainian officials say, will not happen. Zelensky said that he told President Donald Trump and European leaders in a meeting earlier this week in the Oval Office that “legally, we do not recognize the occupation.” Moreover, if Ukrainian troops withdraw from the remaining portion of Donetsk, “it would then open the path to Kharkiv” and other industrial centers in eastern Ukraine. “This is not only a constitutional issue — it is a matter of our country’s survival, involving the strongest defensive lines and distances to industrial centers,” Zelensky said in Washington, according to his account to journalists on Wednesday. “If Putin gains this territory, he will try to advance further, regardless of whether he signs anything or not.” Zelensky now must persuade Trump to back Ukraine’s position. Although the Ukrainian leader’s popularity at the moment remains high — a 58 percent trust rating, according to KIIS — his political survival is very likely to depend on being able to resist Russia’s demands. “The situation is difficult for him, because from what I know, he’s being put under a lot of pressure and he’s being threatened that there will no longer be financial support, intelligence,” said Tymofiy Mylovanov, director of the Kyiv School of Economics and an adviser to the presidential administration. “There are people who might use it against him. Very few will defend him,” Mylovanov said. “So he’s very much limited politically. Just like in any democracy.” How the Ukrainian public would react to a peace deal remains to be seen. Grushetskyi says it is unlikely there will be mass protests if Ukraine consents to Russia’s de facto control of what it already occupies. But this must also be accompanied by firm security guarantees by the West, as well as rejecting other Kremlin demands, such as reducing Ukraine’s military and allowing the Kremlin to dictate internal Ukrainian politics. In the end, many Ukrainians are simply exhausted by the war and will welcome a stop to the fighting, even if in a few years Russia violates the terms of the agreement. Oleksandr Kaluhin, 43, a former border guard, fled his home in Donetsk city with his wife, who was then pregnant, in 2014 when it was first stormed by Russian-backed forces. He signed up to fight in Donetsk in 2016, when Russia waged an undeclared war in the Donbas region, and then again in 2022, a week after the full-scale invasion. His wife fled with their son Heorhii to Poland in 2022, and he has not seen them since. Ideally, Kaluhin would like to return to a Ukrainian-controlled Donetsk city — even if just to visit. But after 11 years, he holds no illusions about showing his son the city he has never seen. “People can be realistic about this, or they can fantasize about what’s going to happen,” he said. “Soldiers, especially those who fought since 2014, are exhausted.” When the war ends, he said, he will probably move to Poland to live with his family — and adapt to the life they have built in his absence. His wife works in a poultry plant, and his son is enrolled in Polish school. “I want a better life for my kid,” he said. “I don’t want to just see him, I want to raise him.” Anastasiia, also from Donetsk city, disagrees. She lived there for eight years under the control of Russian-backed forces until the full-scale war started. “I believe that any territorial agreement with the aggressor is unacceptable,” said Anastasiia, who spoke on the condition that only her first name be used because her parents still live there. “Giving Russia any Ukrainian territory would be a betrayal — betrayal of the Ukrainians for whom these lands are home, and of those who have already given their lives to liberate them.” Anastasiia does not believe Russia will adhere to the terms of any agreement. “My parents still live under occupation. Donetsk is my home. Many of my friends’ parents are also living in the occupied cities of Donetsk and Luhansk regions,” she said. “Accepting this cynical deal would probably extinguish the hope of ever seeing them again.” Stern and Galouchka reported from Kyiv.

Saudação ao Embaixador Ricupero - Daniel Afonso da Silva (Ateneo de Ciencias Sociales de Argentina)

Eu já transcrevi o meu texto de saudação (não lido, entretanto) na homenagem que foi prestada ao embaixador Rubens Ricupero como membro de honra do Ateneo de Ciencias Sociales da Argentina, neste sábado 23/08/2025, pela via do Zoom.

Aqui o meu texto: 

5037. “Rubens Ricupero: gran estadista de la diplomacia brasileña”, Brasilia, 21 agosto 2025, 3 p. Contribución en su homenaje como miembro de honor del Ateneo de Ciencias Sociales de Argentina, el 23 de agosto de 2025 (via Zoom: https://bit.ly/AteneoHomenaje). Postado no blog Diplomatizzando (link: https://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2025/08/rubens-ricupero-gran-estadista-de-la.html).

Tenho o prazer, agora, de transcrever o textos em homenagem ao embaixador Ricupero pelo meu amigo e colega acadêmico Daniel Afonso da Silva, na mesma ocasião: 

Saudação ao Embaixador Ricupero

23/08/2025

Buenos Aires (via Zoom)

Estimado Dr. Gabriel Mussio de Miguel, Presidente del Instituto

Estimado Nicolas Rivelis, Secretario General

A los amigos de la Fundación Fernando Henrique Cardoso, en la persona del Presidente Cardoso, el Director Sérgio Fausto y de nuestro professor Celso Lafer

A los Amigos de la Academia Brasileña de Letras, en la persona del inmortal Antonio Carlos Secchin, quien envía saludos.  

A los amigos de la Asociación Brasileña de Relaciones Internacionales, en la persona de la doctora Andrea Gil

Estimado Profesor Roberto Luis Troster

Meu querido Embajador Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Estimados embajadores, políticos, autoridades, estudiantes y público en general

Es un poeta, un artista, homme des lettres, diplomático, jurista, ministro de Estado, homme d’état, alto funcionario de las Naciones Unidas, brasileño, italiano, tal vez un poco argentino, esposo de Marisa, hijo de Assumpta Jovine, hermano de Romeu

e de Renê, padre de Cristina, de Isabel, de Bernardo e de Mariana, abuelo de Zoe, Lia y Julia, este es Rubens Ricupero que nos reúne hoy aquí.

Es el mejor entre nosotros.“C’est le meilleur parmi nous”.

Lo cual me deja avergonzado, intimidado y sin palabras.

Así que seré breve. Muy breve.

Empezando con una cita de Calderón de La Barca, que nos recuerda “La vida es sueño y sueño, sueños son”.

Estimado Dr. Mussio, a mi me parece que la decisión del Instituto Ateneo de otorgar al Embajador Ricupero esta honoraria y la amabilidad del Embajador al aceptar, es la realización y concretization de un sueño.

Un privilegio para todos nosotros.

Así que, por mi parte, muy humildemente, puedo simplesmente decirle, muchas gracias, doctor Mussio, muchas gracias, Instituto Ateneo y muchas gracias, mi querido Embajador Rubens Ricupero.

E, se me permitem, em bom português, eu gostaria de dizer diretamente ao Rubens, ao Ricupero e ao meu querido e amado Rubens Ricupero, muito obrigado.

Muito por tanto e muito obrigado por tudo.

Vida longa, Rubens

Vida longa, Ricupero

vida longa, Rubens Ricupero

Daniel Afonso da Silva

Rebatendo um bolsonarista ingênuo ou burro - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Rebatendo um bolsonarista ingênuo, ignorante ou doentio

De vez em quando encontro, nestas paragens, pessoas que sabem escrever razoavelmentebem (ou seja, não são ignorantes ingênuos, mas diplomados pervertidos) e que, a despeito de toda a educação, são capazes, sem qualquer vergonha, de defender um ignaro perverso como o Bozo, supostamente por ser um “democrata”, defendendo o Brasil e os brasileiros contra os “comunistas ditatoriais” como os lulopetistas, que conseguem ser corruptos reincidentes, mas espertos o suficiente para não incorrer no erro de construir o socialismo, sabendo que isso lhes tiraria a capacidade de extrair riqueza dos capitalistas.

Eis o que respondi a um deles:

Bozo é um psicopata perverso, elogiador de torturadores, que acha que a ditadura “matou de menos”, um negacionista vacinal que matou milhares de brasileiros inocentes (muitos bolsonaristas idiotas ao ponto de segui-lo em sua cruzada contra vacinas e medidas profiláticas), e que também é um ladrãozinho vulgar, desde as rachadinhas habituais no inicio de sua carreira política deplorável até chegar a fraude de pedir Pix para seus apoiadores para viver à larga. Também é um falso religioso, um caráter asqueroso e um ignorantão crasso e um imbecil consumado. Nunca foi democrata, sempre foi apenas um candidato a ditador, beneficiado pelas circunstâncias da corrupção petista, admirando ao mesmo tempo Putin e Chávez. 

Como se pode defender um monstro como ele? Só sendo partidário de todas essas deformações de caráter, sem NENHUMA CAPACIDADE DE DISCERNIMENTO, ou seja, equiparado ao próprio Bozo! 

Não tem vergonha?

Assino sempre o que afirmo:

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Brasília, 24/08/2025