Right. I can't shake off your condescending tone, so the only thing I'll contribute here at this point is this:
> Sources I can find have it topping out at 6th in 1995, which (aside from not being 5th) is quite a while ago.
You're right, it was 6th, not 5th, but it was that as of 2012 [0], which is less than a decade ago. I believe it kept the position for another year or 2 but I can't find the data to back that.
Everything else in your post is downplaying how much information on geopolitics a Brazilian ambassador might have relative to yourself, and clearly from your point of view you have the upper hand. I can't beat that.
> Sources I can find have it topping out at 6th in 1995, which (aside from not being 5th) is quite a while ago.
You're right, it was 6th, not 5th, but it was that as of 2012 [0], which is less than a decade ago. I believe it kept the position for another year or 2 but I can't find the data to back that.
Everything else in your post is downplaying how much information on geopolitics a Brazilian ambassador might have relative to yourself, and clearly from your point of view you have the upper hand. I can't beat that.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/06/brazil-econ...