Analysts split between pro-Russian and pro-NATO views on Ukraine war

Pilingui, NATO, and the dividing lines in the Ukraine war

The first certainty to emerge is an uncomfortable one: in the standoff between Russia and NATO, most voices expressed do not align clearly with either bloc. There are declared pro-Russians, resigned Atlanticists, and a growing mass declaring themselves equidistant. The debate, open for nearly five years, has shifted from an initial "there is only one side: the NWO" toward a more pragmatic division: who threatens whom, who pays the price, and what is lost if the other side wins.

Who supports Russia and why

The pro-Russian core relies on three recurring arguments. The first is strategic: Russia embodies a counterweight to the Western system, and its return as a power would force European governments to treat their citizens better, as in the 1980s. The second is based on comparative grievance: it is argued that NATO has overthrown governments, promoted terrorism, and bombed Yugoslavia outside of the UN, citing Operation Gladio as a recurring example. The third is discursive consistency: "He has a very coherent discourse, and the censorship of his channel in the West only makes that clearer to me," summarizes one highly valued message.

Sympathy, however, is not a blank check. Several who declare themselves pro-Russian reject the full-scale invasion: "Politically with Pilingui. Socially, I do not accept that he kills civilians," writes one. Another admits that entering the Donbas would have been defensible, but that the offensive across all of Ukraine has been "madness, something totally disproportionate that has gotten out of hand."

The Atlanticist side: I'm not interested

Opposing them, the bloc supporting NATO does not do so out of enthusiasm. "I don't like NATO one bit, but the one who invaded a country, the one threatening us, is Pilingui," summarizes one intervention. The central argument is immediate security: Pilingui is the one who can kill you and your family, and your enemy's enemy does not have to be your friend. Added to this is the calculation that the war could turn ugly and that Spain, whether we like it or not, is on one side: "Better that our side wins."

A third way has gained weight as the conflict drags on: equidistance. "I am not on anyone's side, because no one is on my side," summarizes a quote attributed to a Tolkien character. Those who defend this view consider that Russia is right on fundamental issues—the protection of Donbas citizens and the rejection of Ukraine joining NATO—but that the invasion was a disproportionate error. They add a nuance that unsettles both blocs: "A reasonably intelligent person will tell you they don't give a damn about NATO or Russia. Those of us who are intelligent know that only China wins."

The unarguable point: citizens pay the price

The point where most positions converge is the economic diagnosis. It is argued that the war does not benefit Europeans, that "we are losing money and health NOW," and that the clash between blocs is a pressure maneuver by the elites. The thesis of exhausted capitalism appears several times: "Globalist capitalist neoliberalism has lasted twenty years; it's obvious. From now on, it will all be deadly bicho, wars..." The discussion drifted toward what capitalism exactly is and whether its supposed duration defines its end, in an exchange that reached no conclusion.

The comparison with the Soviet Union also appears, and not for good. "In the USSR, there weren't many rights, so to speak," recalls one message, to which another responds with a list of states of alarm, media shutdowns, and the arrest of protesters in Spain.

From geopolitics to "there is only one side"

The matter began with a survey to see which option was the majority, and the first response was blunt: "There is only one side: the NWO." This conspiracy-based reading, according to which the entire board responds to a shadow world government, lost strength as the exchange became more nuanced. The hypothesis remains present—"I don't rule out conspiracy at all, but if it exists, it wouldn't matter who you went with; we would be screwed either way"—but it no longer dictates the division.

What dictates the division is Realpolitik. "War is the continuation of politics by other means," quoting Clausewitz, and everyone defends their own interests. There are no good guys or bad guys. This conclusion, which in theory should satisfy everyone, is the one that satisfies no one.

And what if, in the end, the winning side is neither of the two being discussed?