Search

**Putin wants Trump and Xi to help him divide Ukraine.** **Putin proposes a summit with Trump and Xi to discuss an agreement on Ukraine** *Zelensky would not be included in the proposed negotiations, as the Russian leader seeks to negotiate an end to the war on terms favorable to Moscow.* The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, proposed that he, President Trump, and Chinese leader Xi Jinping meet next month to talk about Ukraine, in an attempt to negotiate an end to the four-year conflict on terms favorable to Moscow, according to people familiar with the discussions. The plan represents Putin's effort to capitalize on the rapprochement between Trump and the Russian leader, which has alarmed Ukraine and its allies in Washington and Europe. A summit of this kind — without the participation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — would be unprecedented and trigger alarms in European capitals and elsewhere. ## What's at stake The proposal would reportedly take place on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18–19. Putin is said to have floated the idea in a phone call with Trump on October 9; Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that talks about a possible meeting are underway, but without an agenda or agreement defined. The central point is not just "ending the war": it's **who decides the future of Ukraine**. Excluding Zelensky — and, implicitly, the European Union — would transform peace into an agreement among powers over territory, security, and spheres of influence, rather than negotiations with the invaded country. ## Critique of Putin Putin is trying to convert the invasion into a negotiation of great powers. By proposing a sort of "new Yalta," he seeks three gains: to legitimize Russia's territorial gains, to divide Western allies, and to present Russia as an equal partner to the U.S. and China. His logic is cynical: a country that launched an aggressive war wants the victims and European neighbors to be mere objects of decision. Any "peace" shaped without Kyiv will have little legitimacy and low chances of lasting because Ukraine will continue to have the capacity and will to resist. ## Critique of Trump Trump may not have accepted the summit yet, but his reluctance to immediately refuse is dangerous. By leaving the door open for a meeting without Zelensky, he risks validating Putin's premise: that Ukraine's fate can be resolved by Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. There is also a serious contradiction: Trump presents himself as the man capable of "ending the war," but a hasty peace that rewards aggression would not be peace — it would be a pause that encourages the next invasion. And the report of a potential agreement on Russian diesel, arising in the same conversation, reinforces the perception that economic and personal interests may weigh more than European security. ## Critique of Xi Xi stands to gain a lot by accepting to host or mediate: it places China at the center of the reorganization of European security without bearing the cost of war. However, his neutrality is fictitious; Beijing maintained close economic and political ties with Moscow during the invasion and has an interest in weakening American influence in Europe. If Xi participates in a format that excludes Ukraine, he will cease to be a mediator and become a co-author of a geopolitical arrangement. This would be especially serious for Central and Eastern European countries, which view the defense of Ukraine as a matter of principle and their own security. ## The decisive test A conference can only be legitimate if it includes Ukraine as a participant with full veto rights and involves the European partners who finance and support its defense. Without this, it is not diplomacy: it is an attempt to **divide influence at the expense of a sovereign country**. https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/putin-floats-a-summit-with-trump-and-xi-to-de (translated)

The Minister of Housing, Miguel Pinto Luz, expressed concern about the protests regarding the housing crisis in Portugal, acknowledging the legitimacy of the population's complaints, while praising the dialogue of the mayor of Porto, Pedro Duarte, who refuses to attend the demonstrations but is willing to meet with the protesters at the City Hall. #Habitação #Protestos #Porto (translated)

Planet of Football reported that STJ minister Luis Felipe Salomão rejected Flamengo and Fluminense's attempt to prevent the match between Vasco and Boca Juniors at Maracanã. According to the publication, Salomão considered that the Consortium did not have legitimacy to bring the request to Justice and that its actions were linked to the economic exploitation of the stadium. The publication also stated that the minister dismissed the argument that three games in five days would harm the pitch, as he saw no risk of damage to public property as a whole. Salomão also reportedly criticized the use of a mechanism intended for exceptional situations, instead of the resource he deemed appropriate. #Futebol #STJ #Maracanã (translated)

The Pedrosa Channel reported that Luis Felipe Salomão, president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), rejected the request from Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. this Thursday (15) to suspend the decision that determined the match between Vasco and Boca Juniors to be held at the Maracanã on October 20 at 9:30 PM. According to the channel, the court's order for the match to take place at the stadium remained valid. According to the published summary, Salomão considered that the managing company of the complex did not have standing to appeal through a request for suspension of security, an instrument that, according to him, was intended to protect collective interests. The minister assessed that the case involved private interests related to the exploitation of the Maracanã and that there was no demonstration of public interest that justified the measure. The channel reported that the manager claimed wear of the pitch, concentration of games within a short interval, and security risks due to the gathering of fans, as Flamengo and Botafogo would also be playing a basketball game at the Maracanãzinho. However, Salomão understood that no concrete evidence was presented of a serious threat to public order or safety. He also noted that the questioned decision already anticipated moving the basketball event to avoid overlapping audiences. According to the Pedrosa Channel, Salomão concluded that he did not consider the request as he understood it did not meet the requirements to be analyzed through this avenue. The minister added that any eventual questions regarding the actions of the judges should be presented through the appropriate appeals in the Court of Justice of Rio. The channel emphasized that the decision maintained the existing authorization but did not settle the dispute over the use of the stadium. #STJ #Maracanã #Futebol (translated)

Attention, Vasco fans! It was reported that the President of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Minister Luis Felipe Salomão, did not grant, on Thursday (15), the request from Fla-Flu Serviços S.A. to suspend the decision that authorized Vasco x Boca Juniors at Maracanã on October 20 at 9:30 PM for the semifinal of the Copa Sul-Americana. According to the report, Salomão considered that the concessionaire, constituted by Flamengo and Fluminense, did not have the legitimacy to appeal to this legal instrument, as it is a private company and does not act as a delegate of public service. The minister also understood that the choice of the stadium did not constitute a primary public interest that would justify the exceptional request. The publication stated that Fla-Flu Serviços had claimed risks related to the meeting of the fans, the operation of the stadium, the pitch, and the need for a minimum interval of 72 hours between matches. According to the report, Salomão concluded that the company did not prove a serious threat to public order, security, or the economy. He also pointed out that the transfer of the basketball game between Flamengo and Botafogo alleviated some of the concerns. Furthermore, according to Attention, Vasco fans!, the minister considered that potential damage to the pitch would not constitute serious harm to public assets nor justify the suspension. The publication added that he evaluated that the request could not substitute for a judicial appeal and that any questioning regarding the actions of judges from the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro should follow the appropriate appeal channels. The decision maintained the authorization for the match at Maracanã without suspension by the STJ. The publication described the outcome as a procedural victory for Vasco but noted that it did not end all possibilities for judicial contestation. It also informed that the decision concerning Safety Suspension No. 3,678/RJ was signed at 12:49 PM on October 15, 2026. #Vasco #BocaJuniors #Maracanã (translated)

The Minister of Internal Administration, Luís Neves, defended the legitimacy of the police intervention in the action that took place in the early morning in Porto, in response to protests, while parties like PS, Livre, PCP, and Bloco de Esquerda are asking for clarifications on the proportionality and the coordination between the police and the municipality. #DireitosHumanos #LiberdadeDeManifestação #PolíticaPortugal (translated)

"ensures the stability and institutional legitimacy essential for guiding the destiny of the Republic throughout this XII legislature" "We are facing a programmatic commitment of a patriotic nature, safeguarded by reciprocal guarantees and assumed in the strictest good faith, whose primary scope is to restore economic predictability and social peace to our legal framework" "is anchored in non-negotiable strategic vectors" "macroeconomic stabilization and the safeguarding of the purchasing power of families, through urgent measures to mitigate inflation and alleviate essential goods" Américo Ramos, still prime minister and president of the Independent Democratic Action (ADI), which came second with 23 mandates in the elections of September 27, emphasized that this union with the MCI-PS/PUB coalition "ensures the stability and institutional legitimacy essential for guiding the destiny of the Republic throughout this XII legislature." (translated)

The profile SPACE LIBERDADE stated that Flávio Dino defended the legitimacy of court decisions during the elections and cited as precedents the case of Bush v. Gore in the United States in 2000 and Silvio Santos' candidacy in 1989. https://t.co/PF1dSaYSLy #Eleições2022 #Justiça #FlávioDino (translated)

Kriska Carvalho praised Flávio Dino and stated that bringing Justice into play to resolve controversies was part of the separation of powers. As examples, she cited the 2000 presidential election in the United States: according to her, legal disputes lasted a month and ended with a 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court in the Bush vs. Gore case. Carvalho said that Al Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College after a difference of 0.009% of the votes in Florida and the judicial interruption of the recount. She added that the episode did not cause an institutional crisis, the end of the Supreme Court, or the impeachment of its judges. Carvalho also mentioned the 1989 Brazilian presidential election, whose outcome, according to her, was heavily influenced by a judicial decision regarding Silvio Santos's candidacy, made less than a week before the voting. She defended the legitimacy of the decisions made by Ministers Kassio and Gilmar and Minister Estela regarding debate rules, although she acknowledged that there was room to disagree with their content. She stated that Kassio determined Zema's participation on Globo, that Gilmar guaranteed Renan Santos's presence, and that Estela decided on the existence of an empty chair on the stage. She said that the country should not return to the period before 1930, when, in her description, there was no Electoral Justice and the law of the strongest prevailed. Finally, she questioned why, according to her, Estela's decision was more attacked than those of the two ministers. #Justiça #Eleições #Democracia (translated)

Alexandre de Moraes acaba de ser sorteado relator de uma ação que pede ao STF justamente a liberação dos registros de entrada de sua própria esposa, Viviane Barci de Moraes, e de Daniel Vorcaro no Senado. Sim: o ministro poderá decidir sobre a divulgação de informações que envolvem diretamente sua mulher e o banqueiro cujo Banco Master manteve contrato milionário com o escritório dela. O pedido é do vereador Guilherme Kilter (Novo), após o Senado negar três solicitações pela Lei de Acesso à Informação. A justificativa seria que os registros seriam “informações de caráter pessoal”. Além de Viviane e Vorcaro, aparecem Lulinha, Careca do INSS, Frei Chico e outros nomes. Como Davi Alcolumbre foi apontado como responsável pela negativa, o processo terminou no Supremo. O contrato entre o Master e o escritório Barci de Moraes previa R$ 131 milhões, em 36 parcelas de R$ 3,6 milhões. Dados da Receita apontaram R$ 80,2 milhões declarados em repasses entre 2024 e 2025. A minuta previa consultoria perante PF, Banco Central, Receita e Cade. E tem mais. Metadados do documento mostraram alterações feitas por um usuário identificado como “Ministro Alexandre de Moraes”. O escritório confirmou que Moraes teve acesso à minuta antes da assinatura para verificar possíveis impedimentos legais. Agora, o mesmo ministro foi sorteado para analisar a abertura dos registros da própria esposa e de Vorcaro. A distribuição foi por sorteio e Moraes ainda não decidiu nada. É absolutamente constrangedor; a esta altura, o problema já não é Moraes julgar uma ação que envolve a própria esposa, é Moraes continuar julgando qualquer coisa. Sua legitimidade como juiz foi para o ralo diante de tudo o que veio à tona sem o escrutínio institucional que a gravidade dos fatos exigia. Seu próprio Supremo preferiu não enfrentar o problema; e agora seu nome continua no sistema, sorteado para julgar justamente um processo que alcança sua mulher. É o retrato de uma Corte que jogou a própria credibilidade no lixo. #STF #AlexandreDeMoraes #LeiDeAcessoÀInformação

O vídeo da BBC News Brasil, apresentado pela repórter Stephanie Rodrigues, reconstrói como o Supremo Tribunal Federal saiu de um órgão relativamente discreto — em que muita gente nem sabia o nome dos 11 ministros — para o centro das disputas políticas do país. A reportagem deixa claro que a crise atual, marcada por decisões individuais que se anulam, guerra de liminares e, pela primeira vez, o plenário avaliando investigar um dos próprios ministros, não nasceu só do caso do Banco Master. Ela é o resultado de um processo longo. A Constituição de 1988 ampliou muito o papel do STF como “guardião da Constituição”. Ela criou mais direitos, mais tipos de ação e mais legitimados para provocar a Corte, inclusive partidos. Na falta de lei do Congresso, o tribunal passou a poder atuar — quase legislar, como o próprio Fernando Henrique Cardoso reconheceu anos depois. Nos anos 2000, com novas composições e uma leitura mais ofensiva da Carta (o chamado neoconstitucionalismo), o Supremo deixou de ser sobretudo colegiado e passou a dar mais espaço a decisões individuais dos relatores. Casos como a regulamentação da greve de servidores, a união homoafetiva e a judicialização da saúde ilustram essa mudança. O Mensalão e, sobretudo, a Lava Jato aceleraram a transformação: o STF passou a julgar processos criminais complexos e de enorme repercussão política, não só questões constitucionais. A TV Justiça, criada em 2002, deu visibilidade às sessões e transformou ministros em atores públicos. O resultado, segundo a reportagem e os juristas ouvidos, é um tribunal com enorme poder — 75% dos brasileiros já achavam, antes da crise atual, que os ministros têm poder demais — mas com legitimidade cada vez mais questionada, porque as decisões individuais e a atuação política superaram o desenho institucional original. https://t.co/u3B7XTpdzb #STF #Justiça #PolíticaBrasileira

EDITORIAL | O mergulho do STF no descrédito – “Um STF que se deixa rebaixar ao rés do chão da maneira degradante a que todos assistimos corrompe o patrimônio simbólico do decoro e da imparcialidade, húmus de sua legitimidade”. Leia o texto completo: https://t.co/Ct9kAzSsnh https://t.co/edCmzEjuy1 #STF #justiça #imparcialidade

A Justiça Eleitoral sempre gozou de enorme prestígio entre os brasileiros. E não é para menos! Do Oiapoque/AP ao Chuí/RS, de Mâncio Lima/AC a João Pessoa/PB, ela se faz presente. A cada dois anos, todos os municípios do país recebem urnas eletrônicas, confiáveis e auditáveis, que puseram fim às antigas práticas de fraude. Com atuação apartidária e fiel à Constituição, o TSE sempre garantiu a paridade de armas entre candidatos e a legitimidade das eleições. Os desafios, no entanto, continuam. O desenvolvimento tecnológico tem apresentado uma série de novas dificuldades à regularidade da formação da vontade popular. As ferramentas de inteligência artificial hoje existentes, ao mesmo tempo em que ajudam nas atividades do dia a dia, permitem a criação de vídeos, áudios e peças de propaganda capazes de enganar o eleitor e desequilibrar as disputas eleitorais. Matéria da Folha de S.Paulo dá a medida do problema: pesquisadores produziram quinze peças de propaganda eleitoral falsa com IA e tentaram veiculá-las como anúncios pagos por contas nos Estados Unidos, o que a lei proíbe. Treze passaram pelos filtros da Meta. Entre elas, uma imagem falsa do Presidente do TSE alterando a data do primeiro turno e uma convocação a "retomar Brasília, como fizemos em 8 de janeiro". E não é só. Relatório reservado da Abin, revelado hoje pelo mesmo jornal, aponta risco crítico de interferência externa nas eleições, movida pelo objetivo de assegurar controle sobre nossos ativos estratégicos e riquezas naturais. Mais grave, porém, é o risco que vem de dentro: o da politização da Justiça Eleitoral. Quem tenta engajar o Tribunal em proselitismo partidário deve avaliar se reúne condições de nele permanecer. E os partidos políticos e o Ministério Público Eleitoral devem fiscalizar atentamente se essas condições estão presentes, arguindo a suspeição nos casos em que ela se configure. É preciso, pois, que o TSE continue a coibir práticas abusivas e deturpadoras da vontade popular. Para tanto, é indispensável uma atuação altiva, imparcial e apartidária, cujo único compromisso seja com a Constituição e com as leis. O STF, por sua vez, continuará a atuar como instância de supervisão, com a firmeza que o momento exige, intervindo sempre que necessário à preservação de seus próprios precedentes e da Constituição. https://t.co/QYOJF8PYar #JustiçaEleitoral #Eleições2023 #Democracia

André Mendonça decide que Zé Trovão não tem legitimidade para representar contra a campanha de Lula por aumento do Bolsa Família em ano eleitoral e extingue a ação. Representações desse tipo podem ser formuladas apenas por partido, coligação ou candidato *concorrendo ao mesmo cargo*. #BolsaFamília #Eleições2022 #PolíticaBrasileira

PGR tentando cavar uma NULIDADE na condução do André Mendonça. Qual a legitimidade de Paulo Gonet na sua posição atual? Já era para ter sido afastado... https://t.co/CQxM3tx2nN #Justiça #Direito #Política