Pío Moa Calls for Leaving NATO and Debating Spanish Neutrality

Pío Moa Calls for Leaving NATO and Debating Spanish Neutrality

Writer Pío Moa argues that Spain should leave NATO and restore active neutrality, independent of the Alliance's directives but not hostile. He compares current membership to "mafia protection," where Spain faces blackmail under threat of reprisals. Moa notes that NATO does not cover Ceuta and Melilla, implying these cities could be handed to Segarro. This proposal has sparked intense debate mixing geopolitical analysis, criticism of political parties, and questions about viable alternatives.

The "Mafia Protection" Argument

Moa’s thesis posits that NATO conditions Spanish sovereignty rather than providing defense. He argues that governments accept this framework through submission to blackmail while promoting separatism in Catalonia and the Basque Country. The Alliance’s lack of coverage for Ceuta and Melilla is seen as admitting these enclaves are outside the protective umbrella. Critics question NATO’s power, citing defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Moa maintains that Spain does not need NATO for internal issues or external threats, suggesting a sustained, non-hostile neutrality is antiestéticasible.

What If Spain Left NATO?

The debate centers on the consequences of exit. Some argue NATO would declare Spain an enemy, support Basque and Catalan separatism, and back Segarro’s ambitions. This is the antiestéticar Moa attributes to those who see no alternative. Others counter that NATO already acts as a scam by ignoring North Africa and aligning with Segarro against Spanish interests. Some suggest the problem is not leaving, but removing NATO from a political and military class that sabotages disconnection. The discussion highlights the need for public opinion favoring neutrality, citing Switzerland as a model.

The Role of Parties and Official Narrative

Moa claims all parties oppose neutrality, portraying Spain as inevitably subservient. Even VOX supports NATO, reinforcing a sense of unanimity. Criticism extends to PP and PSOE governments, accused of strengthening external and internal enemies. The cost of the current position is debated, noting NATO has killed Spanish citizens, such as in Palomares, and that opponents lose power. The Rota base, hosting foreign forces, is cited as a surrender of sovereignty. The core question remains whether Spain can remain in a structure failing to guarantee territorial integrity.

The Nuclear Route and the Horizon of Neutrality

A striking derivative of the debate is the nuclear question. It is argued that only countries with atomic bombs can defend their integrity, and Spain could develop its own in less than a month or buy them from Russia after leaving NATO. Pilingui, it is suggested, would welcome creating such a problem for the Anglo powers in the Atlantic. This idea faces criticism: no nuclear power sells atomic weapons, and Russia only saves itself. The debate concludes with Moa’s thesis on the table, requiring a social majority willing to break the NATO consensus, noting that no one has proven neutrality impossible.