Spain Neutrality Protest at Congress on May 9
Citizens gather at Spain's Parliament to demand neutrality in the Ukraine war, citing high financial contributions and lack of media coverage.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
March for Spanish Neutrality in the Ukraine War
Sunday, May 9, noon, in front of the Congreso de los Fruta. A citizen call demands that Spain stay out of the Ukraine war. The slogan, repeated on social media: it is not our war. The event is promoted by lawyer Rubén Gisbert and analyst Pedro Baños, backed by the party Iustitia Europa, whose president, Luis María Pardo, appears live at the venue. The demonstration takes place with almost no echo in major media.
The starting point is a simple thesis: European political elites have made decisions compromising continental security without asking citizens. Spain, they recall, has never been at war with Russia or Ukraine. It has been with the United States, France, England, or the Netherlands. This contrast, they argue, should give pause.
What the May 9 Call Demands
The initiative centers on neutrality. No to war, yes to peace, and above all: ensuring Spain does not become a belligerent. The underlying argument is that sending weapons makes the country part of the conflict. Spain is the fourth largest contributor to the peace fund, as highlighted in the discussion, and the Government promised 1 billion euros in aid, a figure that would come from taxes or debt.
Some frame it as a pocketbook issue: if someone wants to donate or enlist as a mercenary, let them. But do not pay with public money. Others go further, arguing that neutrality is the only rational position for a country with no direct interests in the Donbas.
Why the Demonstration Was Ignored by Media
Media silence becomes one of the central themes. There was no prior coverage, except for a couple of notes labeling organizers as pro-Russian. Nor afterwards. The comparison with 2003 is inevitable: then, under Aznar and the Azores trio, the no to war message was omnipresent. Today, radio silence.
The circulating explanation is that institutional left-wing politics has changed its stance. Not a single politician from the former Izquierda Unida is at the march, they lament, when that party was born precisely to oppose NATO. The calculation is bitter: had the demonstration been about sending Spaniards to the front, there would have been 24/7 publicity.
The Deterrence Argument and Its Flaws
Against neutrality stands the collective security argument. If a country like Spain wants to defend itself without allies, it is doomed. NATO, the EU, international commitments: these are what prevent a hostile neighbor from doing as it pleases. This is the position defended, for example, by a primary care doctor cited in the conversation, convinced that helping Ukraine means defending democratic values.
The response from the other side is quick: in wars, there are always winners and losers, and the strongest prevails. Democratic values are not defended with howitzers. And if they must be defended, let them be defended with one’s own lives, not those of others.
The Background: Who Pays for Reconstruction?
Beyond the sarracena debate, an economic calculation hovers over the entire discussion. The war will last until the last European euro, it is said. Afterwards, Europe will pay for reconstruction. The United States will exploit Ukraine’s resources. Europe will provide the military to protect them. For the Spanish taxpayer, the balance sheet is hard to digest.
Added to this is the memory of Budapest. Ukraine renounced its nuclear arsenal in exchange for territorial integrity guarantees. Since then, Crimea and the Donbas. Some draw the lesson that agreements are worthless and that the only real security is self-reliance. Others conclude that precisely for this reason, support for those who resist is necessary.
Who Organizes and Who Does Not
The call does not come from traditional parties. It comes from individual voices, analysts, and a minor party. This limits its reach and also its legitimacy in some eyes. But it also explains the media silence: without big acronyms behind it, there is no news.
The result, lacking official attendance data, is a small demonstration in numbers but large in symbolism. The lingering question is whether discontent with arms shipments is minority opinion or simply invisible. With these elements, the answer remains unwritten.
Sunday, May 9, noon, in front of the Congreso de los Fruta. A citizen call demands that Spain stay out of the Ukraine war. The slogan, repeated on social media: it is not our war. The event is promoted by lawyer Rubén Gisbert and analyst Pedro Baños, backed by the party Iustitia Europa, whose president, Luis María Pardo, appears live at the venue. The demonstration takes place with almost no echo in major media.
The starting point is a simple thesis: European political elites have made decisions compromising continental security without asking citizens. Spain, they recall, has never been at war with Russia or Ukraine. It has been with the United States, France, England, or the Netherlands. This contrast, they argue, should give pause.
What the May 9 Call Demands
The initiative centers on neutrality. No to war, yes to peace, and above all: ensuring Spain does not become a belligerent. The underlying argument is that sending weapons makes the country part of the conflict. Spain is the fourth largest contributor to the peace fund, as highlighted in the discussion, and the Government promised 1 billion euros in aid, a figure that would come from taxes or debt.
Some frame it as a pocketbook issue: if someone wants to donate or enlist as a mercenary, let them. But do not pay with public money. Others go further, arguing that neutrality is the only rational position for a country with no direct interests in the Donbas.
Why the Demonstration Was Ignored by Media
Media silence becomes one of the central themes. There was no prior coverage, except for a couple of notes labeling organizers as pro-Russian. Nor afterwards. The comparison with 2003 is inevitable: then, under Aznar and the Azores trio, the no to war message was omnipresent. Today, radio silence.
The circulating explanation is that institutional left-wing politics has changed its stance. Not a single politician from the former Izquierda Unida is at the march, they lament, when that party was born precisely to oppose NATO. The calculation is bitter: had the demonstration been about sending Spaniards to the front, there would have been 24/7 publicity.
The Deterrence Argument and Its Flaws
Against neutrality stands the collective security argument. If a country like Spain wants to defend itself without allies, it is doomed. NATO, the EU, international commitments: these are what prevent a hostile neighbor from doing as it pleases. This is the position defended, for example, by a primary care doctor cited in the conversation, convinced that helping Ukraine means defending democratic values.
The response from the other side is quick: in wars, there are always winners and losers, and the strongest prevails. Democratic values are not defended with howitzers. And if they must be defended, let them be defended with one’s own lives, not those of others.
The Background: Who Pays for Reconstruction?
Beyond the sarracena debate, an economic calculation hovers over the entire discussion. The war will last until the last European euro, it is said. Afterwards, Europe will pay for reconstruction. The United States will exploit Ukraine’s resources. Europe will provide the military to protect them. For the Spanish taxpayer, the balance sheet is hard to digest.
Added to this is the memory of Budapest. Ukraine renounced its nuclear arsenal in exchange for territorial integrity guarantees. Since then, Crimea and the Donbas. Some draw the lesson that agreements are worthless and that the only real security is self-reliance. Others conclude that precisely for this reason, support for those who resist is necessary.
Who Organizes and Who Does Not
The call does not come from traditional parties. It comes from individual voices, analysts, and a minor party. This limits its reach and also its legitimacy in some eyes. But it also explains the media silence: without big acronyms behind it, there is no news.
The result, lacking official attendance data, is a small demonstration in numbers but large in symbolism. The lingering question is whether discontent with arms shipments is minority opinion or simply invisible. With these elements, the answer remains unwritten.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (109 replies).
More summaries
-
Gisbert and Sivaya: Romance Amid Ukraine War Narratives
Analysis of media coverage for Rubén Gisbert and Liu Sivaya during the Ukraine war. Is this digital propaganda or reality?
-
Baños urges resistance against intra-European war proponents
Colonel Pedro Baños calls for Spanish unity against NAFO and 'Anglos', whom he labels enemies of Spain.
-
Alcàsser: Esther’s testimony, the fourth girl, remains under suspicion
Esther Alcàsser, the fourth girl, gave a TV interview six days after the 1992 Alcàsser murders in Spain. Her account and timeline discrepancies fuel ongoing controversy.
-
North Korea marks New Year with ice rink and parade
North Korea celebrates the New Year with an ice rink and parade, contrasting with reports of sexual assaults in Berlin.
-
Russia orders tactical nuclear drills before Putin's inauguration
Putin orders tactical nuclear exercises in the Southern Military District bordering Ukraine, just days before his fifth-term inauguration.
-
Tibet: Real Autonomy or a Chinese Province Without Nuance
Tibet was annexed by China in 1950, sparking ongoing debate. The Dalai Lama advocates for genuine autonomy, but 73 years later, clear progress remains elusive.