Challenging Western dominance
Constantin von Hoffmeister | Oct 26, 2026
The elections in Brazil and Serbia on October 25 delivered two victories that reach far beyond their national borders. In Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated Flávio Bolsonaro, the candidate of the American-aligned neoconservative right. In Serbia, a student-led movement swept aside the political machine of Aleksandar Vučić, ending fourteen years of rule by his Serbian Progressive Party. The two movements come from different traditions, yet both can be understood as victories for national sovereignty against Western imperialism and Zionist influence. One represents the growing strength of BRICS and the multipolar world. The other represents a popular revolt against a government that had made endless compromises with Western power. In both countries, the voters delivered a simple message: the nation belongs to its people, not to foreign capitals or the politicians who seek their approval.
Brazil’s election was a direct challenge to Washington’s ambitions in Latin America. Lula won 51.79 percent of the vote against Bolsonaro, whose political loyalties pointed towards Donald Trump’s neoconservative course and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Zionist Greater Israel ambitions. Bolsonaro promised closer relations with Israel and suggested that Brazil should reconsider its place in BRICS. Netanyahu openly welcomed his candidacy, hoping for a Brazilian government more sympathetic to Zionist interests. Lula stood for a different course. He condemned Israel’s genocidal conduct in Gaza, defended Palestinian rights, and insisted that Brazil must never become America’s backyard. His victory was therefore a defeat for the political alliance between Washington and the Zionist government in Jerusalem. Brazil’s voters rejected a candidate who would have tied their country’s foreign policy more closely to American and Zionist priorities.
Lula’s importance extends beyond the struggle with Bolsonaro. Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, and its continued participation strengthens the effort to build an international order in which Washington cannot dictate the terms of every relationship. Through BRICS, Brazil works with Russia, China, India, South Africa, and other countries seeking greater freedom in trade, finance, and diplomacy. This does not mean that Lula has broken with the West or intends to do so. It means that he refuses to accept the American claim to permanent leadership over the rest of the world. His patriotism comes from the left, but its central demand is one that patriots everywhere should recognize: a country must have the right to make its own decisions. Brazil has the population, resources, and economic strength to act as a major power. It has no reason to accept the status of an obedient American client.
Serbia’s election struck another blow against a political establishment that had long claimed to defend national interests while making compromises abroad. Vučić presented himself as a Serbian patriot and a friend of Russia, yet his government steadily developed relations with NATO, pursued European integration, and negotiated with Western governments over Kosovo. Serbia remained formally neutral and refused to join sanctions against Moscow, but its foreign policy increasingly reflected the demands of competing external powers. The student movement grew from anger over corruption and the collapse of the railway station canopy in Novi Sad, which killed sixteen people in 2024. What began as a demand for accountability became a national revolt. The students brought together workers, professors, farmers, and ordinary citizens who had grown tired of a political system built around one man. Their electoral victory demonstrated that patriotic feelings cannot be controlled forever by a government simply because it speaks in the name of the nation.
The Serbian students now face a test as important as their victory. Their movement has resisted attempts to reduce it to a conventional pro-Western opposition. Its representatives have defended Serbia’s constitutional position on Kosovo and pledged not to impose sanctions on Russia. At the same time, many of their supporters favor closer relations with the European Union, and the movement has yet to settle its broader foreign policy. This makes the outcome an opportunity for multipolarity rather than a guarantee of it. If the students replace dependence on Vučić with dependence on Brussels, their revolution will have changed the rulers without changing the system. But if they defend Serbia’s right to maintain relations with Russia, China, Europe, and other powers on its own terms, they can give their country something it has lacked for years: a government whose claim to sovereignty rests on public trust rather than political theater.
Brazil and Serbia now stand at different points on the same road. Lula has defended a place for Brazil within an emerging multipolar order, while the Serbian students have won the chance to determine their nation’s future without the old political machine. Neither victory guarantees independence, and neither electorate speaks with one voice. Yet both elections challenge the assumption that national politics must obey the wishes of powerful foreign governments. A multipolar world cannot be built by presidents alone, nor can patriotism survive as an empty slogan repeated at election rallies. Both require governments willing to answer to their own people and to defend their national interests in a world governed by power, competition, and shifting alliances. The message from Brazil and Serbia is clear: national sovereignty must be exercised, not merely proclaimed. Washington, Brussels, and every other center of power will have to reckon with that demand.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.