中国送出5年大单，1.3万亿为巴西兜底，巴总统：对中国感激不尽

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the economic implications of a trade conflict initiated by the U.S. against Brazil, highlighting China's strategic intervention with a significant order to stabilize Brazil's economy and counter U.S. pressure [1][3][20]. Group 1: Trade Dynamics - The U.S. imposed a 50% tariff on key Brazilian exports such as coffee, soybeans, and beef, aiming to exert economic pressure on the Brazilian government [1][7]. - In response, China swiftly approved a five-year contract worth approximately 1.3 trillion RMB (around 200 billion USD) covering 183 Brazilian companies, effectively filling the gap left by the U.S. tariffs [9][11]. - The coffee prices at the São Paulo futures exchange reversed direction, while Starbucks' stock fell by 3.7% due to the impact of U.S. tariffs on consumer prices [11]. Group 2: Economic Strategy - China's intervention is seen as a long-term strategic move, reinforcing its position as Brazil's largest soybean supplier, with exports to China accounting for one-third of Brazil's total exports [11][20]. - The deal signifies a trend towards "de-dollarization," with Brazil's central bank increasing its RMB reserves to 6.8% within six months, and other Latin American countries following suit by selling off dollars [13][20]. - The construction of the "Two Oceans Railway" aims to connect Brazil to Peruvian ports, facilitating direct trade with Asia and reducing reliance on U.S. logistics [13][20]. Group 3: Political Implications - The trade conflict has highlighted the vulnerabilities of U.S. economic hegemony, as Brazil's resilience and China's rapid response demonstrate a shift towards a multipolar world [22][24]. - Brazil's President Lula emphasized the importance of judicial independence, rejecting U.S. interference, which was further underscored by a ruling from Brazil's Supreme Court against U.S. influence [16][22]. - The situation illustrates a broader trend where countries are seeking partnerships with China to mitigate the risks associated with U.S. sanctions and economic pressures [20][24].