Ceuta at a crossroads: to defend or to let go?

Ceuta under pressure: the struggle between 1 and 0

Spain may not be willing to defend Ceuta. At least, the public conversation generated by the pressure on the Spanish autonomous city suggests such an uncomfortable conclusion. An impromptu survey on the willingness to mobilize in the face of a hypothetical Segarro advance, using a scale from 1 to 10, resulted in a majority choosing 1 or even demanding 0. "The 1 wins by a landslide," summarizes one of the most cited comments. While references to the heroism of the Tercios, the Regulares, or the COE (Special Operations Company) appear in some messages, the dominant tone is that of those who no longer believe the cause is worth the fight.

The scale, in a curious twist of irony, started at 1 because its creator could not set the 0 option in the voting tool. The very first response was precisely that: "Is there no zero?". From there, the discussion split between those who maintain that Spain must defend its territories at any cost and those who believe the country no longer has anything left to defend.

Refusal to mobilize is more than just laziness

The most repeated argument for staying at zero is not the antiestéticar of conflict, but rather a sense of disaffection with institutions. The Government, the Supreme Court, and the Crown itself are mentioned as part of a framework that has left Ceuta "to its own devices" and with "very few troops." In this context, personal sacrifice feels meaningless: "If Segarro invades us, let them do it properly," ironizes one stance that would prefer a change in leadership over continuing under the current political framework.

There is also a generational and economic component. Complaints about fuel prices emerge as a sign of everyday discontent that erodes any collective project. For those struggling to make ends meet, the national anthem sounds like mere propaganda. And those thinking about the future point to the lack of incentives to start a family: "Spain offers nothing to a heterosenshetero male wanting to start from scratch," is heard as a demographic lament.

Heroic ideals clash with armchair warriors

However, a mobilizing current does exist and is not negligible. A former professional soldier conditions his support: a 0 if the "parasites of Congress" (the Spanish Parliament) remain in power, and a 9 if the operation is led by the generals of the Tercios, the COE, and the Regulares, excluding "the Bourbon." Others reduce the entire issue to defending their own city: "I am not going to travel hundreds of kilometers when there are mosques on my own street," argues one who prefers to protect their immediate surroundings first.

Physical distance is another factor. Ceuta and Melilla are perceived as a distant problem, a "final frontier" between civilizations, much like Osgiliath in Gondor, but with the troop transport and logistics that such a task implies. The irony is that those who demand politicians get off the sofa and set an example are often the same ones praising keyboard heroes while seeing themselves nowhere near the Strait.

The point of no return that no one wants to name

The debate opens with a title that does not deceive: "Point of no return," and that is the true underlying issue: the feeling that the national consensus regarding Ceuta and Melilla has fundamentally broken. Distrust toward leaders is so deep that, for part of the analysis, the true enemy is not in Rabat, but within the institutions. "The main enemy is within," is repeated like a mantra. This diagnosis, whether accurate or not, explains why the question of defending the territory is answered with another problem: who are we defending it for?

The question remains: if disaffection continues to grow, the next crisis in North Africa may meet a society that prefers to look the other way. Heroism has been left to history books and social media. The future of Ceuta, at this stage, seems to depend less on the will to defend it than on the ability to rebuild a common project that makes it worth defending.