Valter Pomar: 'When Lula speaks of peace, they hear Russia, it's unbelievable'
"For the United States and NATO, the peace advocated by Lula is not in their interest," assessed the professor of International Relations in an interview with TV 247.
247 - Valter Pomar, a professor of international relations at the Federal University of ABC (UFABC), gave an interview to TV 247, commenting on the statements made by former President Lula during his trip to Portugal.
During his trip to Portugal, Lula stated that the war in Ukraine should be resolved through dialogue and negotiation, and that peace is the only possible way to resolve conflicts. However, Pomar emphasized that, for the United States and the countries that make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), when Lula speaks of peace, they are listening to Russia.
According to the professor, NATO and its allies are not interested in resolving conflicts peacefully, but rather in defeating Russia. He further emphasized that the United States and its allies use war as a foreign policy tool to impose their interests and dominate strategic countries.
“From the beginning, President Lula’s statements regarding the war have oscillated in emphasis, changed form, and been questioned for seemingly contradicting one another, but there is a thread of continuity, which is peace. This concern appears in all his statements, whether more formal or informal. At all times, Lula speaks of peace. And this does not sit well with the United States government or NATO,” stated Valter Pomar.
"I mean, every time these guys hear 'peace,' they hear 'Russia.' It's unbelievable. So, no matter what Lula says, what matters is that by including the word 'peace,' they understand that he's pandering to Russia's position. Peace doesn't interest them," he added.
"GSI was useless"
Pomar criticized the Institutional Security Office's (GSI) actions in the incident, stating that the agency was useless and inefficient in ensuring security. According to the professor, the GSI may have been passive or even active in the crime, making it an accomplice.
"If the GSI was passive, that is, if it did nothing to prevent the attack, then it is complicit by omission. If it was active, then it is complicit by action," Pomar stated. "The truth is that it was useless."
The professor highlighted that there are several security models that can be used to guarantee the protection of the president and institutions, and that the GSI (Institutional Security Office) has not proven useful in this regard. He also questioned the need to keep the agency functioning if it does not fulfill its purpose.
Watch Valter Pomar's interview: