The pre-campaign claims that the survey questionnaire was “designed to seriously skew perceptions against Flávio Bolsonaro.” The Bolsonaro supporter also argues that the order of the questions and topics, which “draws connections between the pre-candidate, Daniel Vorcaro, and Banco Master, skews and influences the respondents’ answers.”

The question was raised following the release of an audio recording in which the senator asked the then-banker Daniel Vorcaro for money.

The survey polled 5,032 voters between the 13th—when the conversations between Flávio and Vorcaro were revealed—and the 18th. The survey asked voters if they had heard about the content, and 95.6% answered in the affirmative.

According to the questionnaire made available by Atlas to the TSE (Superior Electoral Court), the audio content was indeed played for respondents, but only as the final item in the survey. Voters who participated in the survey were asked 48 questions.

In the last question, respondents analyzed a video with the audio and could drag the slider to the right when they were “evaluating the content more positively” and to the left when they were “evaluating the content more negatively.” The clip featured images of Flávio and Vorcaro to illustrate the dialogue.

“The poll reveals a serious case of manipulation and failed to observe the neutrality expected in election surveys intended for public release,” stated Flávio’s campaign. The group argues that the survey not only measured voters’ opinions but also presented “prompts capable of influencing the respondent’s perception prior to questions regarding image, rejection, and electoral viability.”

The complaint also requests an investigation into possible electoral crimes. The poll is registered with the TSE under number BR-06939/2026 and has a 95% confidence level. The margin of error is plus or minus 1 percentage point.

As more and more IDF soldiers are killed and injured by Hezbollah drones, while demolishing buildings in Lebanon. The soldiers are complaining that they are being used irresponsibly and taking a great amount of damage as a result. An article in Haaretz today shed light on this:

1. Capt. Maoz Israel Rakanti was killed Friday by an explosive drone while securing a tour held at midday despite standing guidelines to minimize daytime movement due to the drone threat. A commander in the division who had argued against the tour put it bluntly: “For what? To secure a visit by the division commander who wanted to see the Litani and the Galilim Bridge. There was no operational benefit to this visit.” He added that the timing made the decision especially indefensible, coming a day after Sgt. Negev Dagan of the same Golani battalion was killed by a mortar in the same area: “The directive is not to move during daytime unless it’s a matter of life and death. This infuriates me to levels I can’t even describe.”
2. The army’s defense of the decision concedes much of the criticism. A senior military source argued Norkin acted on operational judgment, but acknowledged the security arrangements were inadequate: “Maybe a tank instead of an open jeep. Maybe not staying there 20 minutes after a senior commander leaves.” The justification ultimately fell back on command prerogative: “He’s the commander, and if he thought he needed to see the bridge with his own eyes in daylight, then we execute.” The IDF has not ruled out that Hezbollah identified Norkin’s presence and targeted the location accordingly.
3. The incident reflects a broader erosion of operational discipline around the drone threat. Commanders and soldiers describe a pattern in which troops are exposed to serious risk for missions that are neither urgent nor essential, often demolition work that could be done at night. As an officer serving in the north described the dynamic: “Forces that are required to hide all day and avoid unnecessary exposure find themselves on missions that could be done at night, without endangering the troops beyond what’s already dangerous.”
4. The demolition mission itself structurally exposes troops to the drone threat. A central part of IDF activity in southern Lebanon is the systematic destruction of buildings, with commanders required to report daily tallies of structures demolished. This work demands sustained exposure in open terrain, precisely the conditions in which explosive drones are most effective. One soldier captured the contradiction directly: “We stand exposed securing house demolitions while there are drones in the air. There’s no logic to it.” An earlier account from a soldier in the sector framed the deeper problem: “The only mission is to keep destroying.”

What we are seeing is that the IDF mania to destroy every building in Lebanon is putting their soldiers at risk. But the IDF command would rather put the soldiers at risk in daytime to increase the speed of demolition, than secure the lives of soldiers. Life is cheap for Israel.

“The directive is not to move during daytime unless it’s a matter of life and death.” For decades, the American military, and its allies and proxies, operated with the certainty that anything that can be seen could be killed. This was what the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) that began in the 1970s had promised and had delivered. American dominance on the battlefield was evident and US adversaries were only able to fight US forces asymmetrically, mostly through guerrilla or insurgent campaigns, emphasizing concealment from observation by operating at night, in forbidding terrain or dense urban areas, or among populations. US surveillance and firepower prevented enemies from massing and rarely were US forces in danger of being tactically defeated in combat. American bases were secure, and, while harried by indirect fire, US bases were, by and large, safe and never in any danger of being overrun (with some exceptions in Afghanistan). IED attacks did greatly hamper and hinder US force and logistics movements but US freedom of movement was never fully denied, and the US was always able to mass forces, set the tempo of operations and take initiative at the tactical and operational levels of war.

Now that advantage is gone. The US, allied and proxy dominance of the enemy through surveillance and applied firepower has been equaled. Whether through Iranian drones and missiles damaging and forcing the evacuation of nearly all US Gulf bases, the inability of US carriers to get closer than 1,000km from the Iranian coast, or the IDF unable to move in daylight in Southern Lebanon, the great advantage US forces and their allies once had has been met. Now, with certainty, if US and allied forces can be seen, they too can be killed. I cannot overstate how dramatic this is for an American empire that depends upon the conquest and control of terrain to achieve, demonstrate and report success and victory. An American military unable to openly operate without challenge upends decades of American warfighting on all levels: tactically, doctrinally, industrially, psychologically, politically… The 1970s RMA brought about the high tech weaponry that provided American dominance at the tactical and operational levels of war. This dominance allowed the US to not suffer battlefield defeats while garrisoning terrain and cities. No enemy could fight the US symmetrically and US forces could not be forced to retreat or hunker in their bases (at least not at the tactical level of war, but certainly so at the strategic and political levels). Now nearly any American adversary enjoys that same “if we see it, we can kill it” guarantee.

The Kremlin rejects the inclusion of Cuba on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez held talks on the sidelines of the BRICS Ministerial Meeting in New Delhi.

In a friendly and constructive atmosphere, they reviewed positions on current issues on their bilateral agenda and exchanged views on international matters.

Rodriguez and Lavrov highlighted the firmness of the positions of Cuba and Russia regarding the inadmissibility of the application of unilateral sanctions.

Lavrov expressed his country’s willingness to assist Havana in implementing its just demand for the immediate end of the U.S. blockade. He also stressed that Russia supports Cuba’s removal from Washington’s list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism.”

Given the unprecedented escalation of U.S. aggression against Cuba, Lavrov reaffirmed Moscow’s willingness to provide Havana with corresponding political, diplomatic and material support.

Participants in the BRICS ministerial meeting also expressed solidarity with the Cuban people, rejected the U.S. economic war against the Caribbean nation, and condemned the use of unilateral restrictive measures to punish sovereign states.

Cuban FM Rodriguez denounced the United States over the energy blockade and the threat of direct military attack imposed on his nation.

For more than 60 years, the United States has maintained an economic, commercial, and financial blockade against Cuba, which has had a negative impact on the national economy.

According to the Cuban Foreign Ministry, the accumulated damages caused by Washington’s economic war against Havana exceed US$170 billion. The White House recently intensified the siege with additional coercive and unilateral measures.

The new Atlas/Bloomberg poll released this Tuesday (19) shows President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Workers’ Party - Social Democrat and Democratic Socialism) leading in the 1st and 2nd round scenarios for the 2026 presidential election. The survey indicates a drop for Flávio Bolsonaro (Liberal Party - Far-Right) after the release of the audio involving Daniel Vorcaro, former owner of Banco Master, and the financing of the film “Dark Horse”, about Jair Bolsonaro.

In the main first-round scenario, Lula appears with 47% of voting intentions, stable compared to the previous survey. Flávio Bolsonaro totals 33%, a drop of 5.4 percentage points. Following them are Renan Santos (Missão - Far-Right Incel), with 6.9%; Romeu Zema (Novo - Far-Right Mileism), with 5.2%; and Ronaldo Caiado (Social Democrat Party - Right-Wing Opportunism), with 2.7%.

Flávio’s downfall comes after a crisis triggered by the revelation of an audio recording in which the senator confronts Daniel Vorcaro about payments related to the film “Dark Horse”.

According to Reuters, allies of the senator tried to downplay the relationship with the banker, but acknowledged the political fallout after the case was made public. The agency also reported that the Bolsonaro family supported the production of the film about the political career of former president Jair Bolsonaro.

With Flávio’s decline, even Datafolha became the target of irony from analyst Dawisson Belém Lopes. “Now I understand why Datafolha reopened the search for the ‘anti-Lula’ position,” he wrote on X. According to the analysis, the institute has been seeking to strengthen alternatives to the senator.

However, the AtlasIntel poll also tested a scenario without Flávio Bolsonaro, and the results do not encourage the far-right. In this case, Lula maintains around 47% of voting intentions. Romeu Zema appears with 17%, Ronaldo Caiado reaches almost 14%, and Renan Santos registers 8%. The result shows the president isolated in the lead even when the senator’s name is removed from the race.

In another scenario, with Jair’s Wife, Michelle Bolsonaro (Liberal Party), replacing Flávio, Lula again appears with 47%. Michelle registers 23.4%, followed by Romeu Zema, with 10%; Renan Santos, with 7.8%; and Ronaldo Caiado, with 6%. The performance indicates that the change of names in the Bolsonaro camp does not alter the president’s lead in the first round.

In second-round scenarios, Lula also appears ahead of all tested opponents. According to the survey, the president widened his lead against Flávio Bolsonaro, Romeu Zema, Ronaldo Caiado, and Renan Santos. Against Flávio, Lula reaches almost 49%, while the senator falls from 47.8% to 41.8%. The group of undecided, blank, and null voters grew by 4.6 percentage points.

In an election without Lula’s participation, both Fernando Haddad (Workers’ Party, Minister of Economy) and Geraldo Alckmin (Brazilian Socialist Party - Former Neolib turned Social Democrat) would move ahead of Flávio after the audio with Vorcaro. Haddad would lead by 3.7 percentage points, while Alckmin would have a 4.1 percentage point advantage over Flávio.

Rejection of Flávio Bolsonaro also increased by 2 percentage points. He becomes the pre-candidate with the highest number of voters who say they would not vote for him under any circumstances.

The fear of Flávio Bolsonaro’s election surpasses that of Lula’s reelection. The apprehension about Flávio’s victory has increased by 2 percentage points since April, while the fear of the president’s reelection has fallen by almost 7 percentage points in a month, following the release of the audio recording of Flávio with Vorcaro.

The survey interviewed 5,032 people between May 13 and 18; the margin of error is ±1 pp.