I'm not gonna try and make predictions, but people need to stop jumping to the very first conclusion anyone comes to on this type of thing. So yeah, Bolsonaro may not "have institutional support" officially, but are we forgetting all of the weird shady crap going on where the Brazilian military more or less took out the cartels that helped rig the election, as well as all the generals who came out and said they will not allow lula to take office.
And let's not forget when the corrupt police force was attacking Brazilian civilians, who stepped in to defend them? The Brazilian Military. For all we know, this may be a ploy for "plausible deniability" on the part of Bolsonaro.
"Oh no one supports me so there's nothing I can do". Then all of his supporters in the Brazilian military step in and just perform a counter coup. And of course, during all of this he has to be kept safe, and where else in the world would be safer than with Trump in Mar A Lago? Especially since all the evidence points towards Trump still being president and having infinitely better security than the resident.
Now I could be wrong, I know what you all know of course, but I think this is at least a moderately likely scenario. Bolsonaro "steps aside" for a bit, Brazilian military cleans house in counter coup while Bolsonaro is safe in what essentially amounts to the actual white house. Bolsonaro takes his rightful place as president of Brazil. Rinse and repeat in every other cabal-controlled nation.
The dooming is not yet merited, especially with all the evidence, INCLUDING ACTUAL BOOTS ON THE GROUND ACTION, that we have witnessed in regards to the Brazil situation.
Just my two cents on the issue.
As pointed out I couldn't find the article I was referencing in the original post about the general, but I found this while looking, figured I'd throw it out there. And it's not just "one rando". This is the equivalent of a secret service member stating the next POTUS will not be allowed to take office to his fellow secret service member or the Secretary of Defense.
But as I seem to have lost the article I was referencing, I won't try and defend it further unless I can find it again. However, this entire argument is inane anyway.
Really, you're arguing semantics. Even if it's not true, every other argument is. Explain the Brazillian military taking out lula supported cartels and fighting against the corrupted police forces to defend civilians? Both of which are documented factual statements that have either already occurred or are currently occurring (or both).