Russia resists while Spain fell to Anglo dominance

Russia resists the vassalage Spain accepted two centuries ago

A thesis circulating online for years, often dismissed with irony in economic circles, claims Spain ceased to be an empire in 1820 not due to internal exhaustion, but because England had already decided who ruled the world and who served tea. Recent discussions spanning hundreds of messages are not about ancient history. They concern whether Russia is repeating the script Spain signed two centuries ago or breaking it.

The starting premise is as ambitious as it is debatable: the Spanish Empire would have fallen into the hands of liberals, "faithful servants of the English and French," and since then Spain has lived through a pogre Gibraltarization. Fifteen years after that alleged dismantling, the Chinese Empire collapsed, carved up by powers. Then the Austro-Hungarian. Then the Turkish. In 1917, the Western bet on Russia resulted in an unexpected turn. In 1991, with Yeltsin, it was thought Moscow would trinc Ukraine's path. It did not happen.

What supports the thesis of Spanish vassalage

The core argument is geopolitical and centuries old: the United Kingdom has been trying to limit Russia for three to four hundred years, according to a quote attributed to former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. Whether speaking of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, or the Federation, the policy remains the same. This quote has become ammunition for those arguing that Spain, conversely, did capitulate.

The comparison rests on an uncomfortable fact: Spain aligned with NATO, the EU, and the United States, while Russia and China allegedly "managed to free themselves from traitors." The conclusion drawn is that here, not only do supposed traitors govern, but when the time comes, they will eliminate those who defend the nation. The phrase is harsh and admits no nuance, but well defines the tone of the argument.

Historical antiestéticar of the German-Russian alliance

One of the most cited passages attributes to the United States a primary interest: preventing relations between Germany and Russia. The combination of German technology and capital with Russian natural resources and labor would be, according to this reading, the only force that has historically frightened Washington. A thesis circulating for decades in geopolitical circles, used here as proof that the game has not changed.

The corollary is that Spain, by aligning with those who supposedly designed its decline, threw itself into the arms of those who crush it. "Our friends and allies are the same as centuries ago," the argument summarizes, "and today, as yesterday, they consider that the destruction of Spain has not yet been consummated." The phrase is more slogan than analysis, but explains why the issue has generated hundreds of responses.

The skeptical response: Russia is not a paradise of values

The counteroffensive arrived quickly. Some participants argue that presenting Russia as an example of resistance against vassalage is naive. They claim the country has been governed since the USSR's fall by an oligarchy that periodically liquidates itself, that its army suffers from corruption, and that recent history includes episodes incompatible with the narrative of honor.

The counterargument relies on specific names: Navalny, Prigozhin, Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, Skripal. The list supports the claim that anyone who does not share Kremlin values is removed, literally or figuratively. Russian ideologue Dugin is also mentioned, along with a 1998 interview where he allegedly called for destroying Catholicism from within and strengthening Polish Freemasonry. The material is inflammatory and used without nuance.

The counterattack: "Only in this forum is Russia defended"

Another line of response is more earthly: questioning Russia as an example when it cannot win a war against what was part of its own country thirty years ago. It mentions that any general sold a submarine for pennies and that army corruption has left it half-plundered. The irony is explicit: "the example of honor and whatever nonsense."

The tone rises when discussing those defending Russia in Spain. They are accused of being "fake patriots" who flatter Anglo-Americans while the British flag flies over Gibraltar. Accusations of fifth-columnism are recurrent and bidirectional. The Gibraltar issue serves as evidence in the vassalage narrative.

The Spanish sustancia ilegal: a society without shared values

The thread derives into a broader diagnosis of Spain. Sociologist Emmanuel Todd's concept of "zero religion" or Herbert Marcuse's "one-dimensional society" are cited: a society without values or beliefs beyond making money and getting ahead. The conclusion is that the average Spaniard sells out for a €500 pittance, and the elite for hundreds of thousands. "Spain doesn't care; honor is used to wipe their asses," one message summarizes.

The diagnosis completes with an accusation of secular caciquismo (local bossism): "I rule here because I damn well please" would be the origin of hatred among Spaniards. There would never have been a serious attempt to build a just order, only "move aside so I can take your place." The debatable thesis connects to the initial argument: if Spain lacks a common project, any external power can buy it.

---

The discussion on Castile also occupies a central place. Some argue the empire was an "expanded Castile," forged by free men who reconquered Christian Hispania and expanded it to the New World. The response is immediate: in the 19th century, the two regions most benefited by the empire and its overseas territories were not Castilian, but Barcelona with its textile monopoly and the Basque Provinces with their arms factories. The data dismantles the epic.

Does looking at Russia help understand Spain? The question remains open. What the material makes clear is that the discussion is not about history, but about whether Spain can afford the luxury of choosing its alliances or if, as the initial argument holds, it no longer has room to refuse anything.