Rubén Gisbert analyzes the Ukraine war through power theory

Rubén Gisbert's war theory: a thesis that unsettles both sides

Rubén Gisbert's thesis on Ukraine can be summed up in a sentence that pleases no one: the war is understood without good or evil. The YouTuber and analyst applies the power theory, attributed to the jurist Antonio García-Trevijano, to the conflict, and the result is uncomfortable for both those who trinc the NATO framework and those seeking an ally in Moscow. If you remove goodness and evil, he argues, what remains is a country seeking hegemony that indirectly attacks another weaker country pursuing its own. The struggle has been ongoing for some time and continues without an arbiter.

The logic behind analyzing war through power theory

His supporters maintain that the analysis is non-partisan. Instead of assigning blame, it describes interests: those of the United States and those of Russia. From this perspective, explanations focus on power relations rather than the sarracena of the facts. Any war can be justified by saying the United States provoked it, critics respond, and that is where the real clash begins.

Those who align with this methodology insist on a track record: they have maintained the same arguments since before the conflict began, when almost no one had yet adopted a geopolitical reading. They point out that he did not fall into sentimentality or partisan hooliganism. Others reproach him for the exact opposite: that this neutrality is a disguise and that his perspective ultimately coincides with that of the Kremlin.

Are formal democracy and expansionism compatible?

Here, nuance is important. It is one thing for the United States to have a formal democracy, understood as an internal functioning mechanism, and quite another to look at its external actions. The two planes do not cancel each other out. Formal democracy would be, at most, a requirement for later seeking just solutions, not a panacea: a society can relax and become something very different from what its system promises.

This argument is used to dismantle an apparent contradiction. Those who accuse the analyst of defending US democracy yesterday and Russia today receive the same response: they are not mutually exclusive. The criticism of the double standard—you cannot censor the United States without being called pro-Russian—runs through the entire discussion and explains much of its virulence.

Nuclear deterrence and the ghost of the missile crisis

The strategic reasoning relies on a Cold War classic. Mutually assured destruction worked because the aggressed party would have time to launch its own weapons, ensuring no one would win. If NATO places missile bases and aircraft with nuclear capability minutes away from Moscow, that balance is broken: the first strike could devastate bases and cities before any response. The precedent cited is the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the USSR attempted to place a gun to its rival's side.

This leads to the reading on Ukraine: if a neighboring country joins the Alliance, Russia is left at the mercy of Washington. The opposing reproach is not far behind. Detractors argue that this logic serves to justify any invasion in advance.

May 9th and the three bombs: the most controversial predictions

There are specific dates. In one of his appearances, he sets the end of the war for May 9th, to coincide with Russian Victory Day, under a blue sky. Other scenarios attributed to this type of reading contemplate three nuclear bombs over three cities as a fast track to end the conflict. These claims have been met with mockery in wide sectors.

Accusations of opportunism are mounting. It is said that he defends one position or another based on the profit he calculates for his channel, citing an episode where he allegedly admitted to supporting certain creators because they provided promotion. Those who have trinc him for years soften the tone: they admit he can be harsh and finds it hard to rectify, and they claim his right to be wrong without succumbing to a single official version.

The exhaustion of a generalist commentator

Part of the audience does not forgive his wide range of topics. He is described as a generalist who speaks about everything from economics to Afghanistan, an African country, or a cooking recipe. The most frequent comparison is with technical economic commentators, to whom greater rigor in source reading is granted. Behind this lies a fundamental accusation: building authority without admitting error.

The conversation sometimes drifts toward other theses of his, such as his defense of the power of abstention, a discourse he considers silenced in the media. At that point, reproaches mix with the political affiliations attributed to him by others, and the analysis of the war takes a backseat.

Closing

The debate remains open, with supporters and critics of this approach.