Spain's army and Ukraine: doubts over its real readiness
The debate over sending the Spanish army to Ukraine exposes doubts about its actual readiness, its dependence on NATO and the response to the Valencia floods.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Spain's army and Ukraine: doubts over its real readiness
Does it make sense to send to Ukraine an army that, according to some participants, does not control the national borders and whose response to the Valencia floods was late? The question, raised amid a debate on a possible deployment of European troops to Ukraine, has turned into a blunt analysis of Spain's true military capability. The answers focus not on political expediency but on something more uncomfortable: the actual readiness of the Armed Forces and their dependence on NATO.
The starting point is a contradiction many consider insurmountable. It is argued that the army cannot defend Spain's land border, that it was not mobilised as quickly as expected after the Valencia disaster, and that it would nevertheless be sent to a high-intensity conflict in eastern Europe. The discussion quickly shifts to Spain's role in NATO and the European Union, where its sovereignty over the use of its armed forces is seen as limited.
Is the Spanish army ready for a war against Russia?
The answer that dominates the analysis is a resounding no. It is argued that Spanish battalions are not prepared for a war of drones, artillery and entrenched positions like the one being fought in Ukraine. The troops are described as civil servants in uniform, and the lack of equipment is criticised: the Leopard tanks are said to have maintenance problems and the Hawk missiles date from the Vietnam era. The conclusion is that Europe's armies, as a whole, are a fiction incapable of replacing artillery shells.
This lack of readiness is attributed to a combination of factors. On the one hand, dependence on NATO, which turns the Spanish army into a piece of a larger apparatus controlled from Brussels and Washington. On the other, Spain's own social and political evolution, which is said to have prioritised other agendas. Supposed feminisation, the inclusion of quotas and bureaucracy are mentioned as elements that would have undermined combat capability. It is a critical view of the direction of the institutions, presenting the army as just another arm of the state rather than an instrument of national defence.
The Valencia floods and disaster management
One of the most repeated arguments is the comparison with the Valencia floods (the DANA, a severe isolated depression storm that hit Valencia in late 2024). It is claimed that the Military Emergency Unit (UME) did not act with the necessary estimulante ilegal, and that its role, as understood, is not the battlefield but disasters. The contradiction is obvious: if it cannot deploy effectively in a domestic emergency, how is it going to fit into a conventional war in Ukraine? The discussion also recalls the earthquake in Segarro, where the Spanish army is said to have acted quickly at the neighbouring country's request, which some interpret as proof that Spain is not the priority.
The management of the Valencia floods thus becomes a thermometer of military effectiveness. It is not just about whether the army can fight, but whether the state as a whole responds to citizens' needs. The conclusion drawn is that there is a gap between the official narrative of modern armed forces and the reality of an institution weighed down by bureaucracy and lack of resources.
NATO's role and Spanish sovereignty
The discussion moves on to geopolitics. It is argued that Spain is an occupied country, with no real sovereignty beyond minor matters. Membership of NATO and the European Union is perceived as a cession of sovereignty that forces Spain to trinc the guidelines of Washington and Brussels. It is claimed that the United States is pressuring Europe to go to war, while American bases control the continent and Ukraine's resources are divided up.
In this context, it is argued that Spain's interests do not align with those of its allies. It is recalled that Segarro, a US partner, is perceived as an enemy in a hybrid war, and that in the event of a serious conflict Spain could be left abandoned, as is said to have peine with Ukraine. The conclusion is that the Spanish army serves foreign interests, and that the Spanish population has no say in its own destiny.
The economic cost and the priority of borders
The debate also has an economic side. It is criticised that resources are devoted to defending European interests while the economy deteriorates. It is predicted that in ten years the economy will be destroyed in order to devote everything to the military budget, and that the population will live on ultra-irradiated worm flour. The priority, it is insisted, should be controlling Spain's border, not sending troops to Ukraine.
The discussion on military spending intertwines with criticism of the political class. It is claimed that politicians practise pogre posturing while society grows poorer. It is said that the army is a reflection of society, and that if the latter is divided and lacks values, the military institution will be too. The conclusion is that the problem is not only military but political and social.
In short, sending troops to Ukraine is seen as madness. Not for lack of will, but for lack of means and sovereignty. The Spanish army, according to this analysis, is not ready for a real war, and its role in NATO makes it a piece on a board it does not control. The question remains: what is the use of an army that does not defend its own?
Does it make sense to send to Ukraine an army that, according to some participants, does not control the national borders and whose response to the Valencia floods was late? The question, raised amid a debate on a possible deployment of European troops to Ukraine, has turned into a blunt analysis of Spain's true military capability. The answers focus not on political expediency but on something more uncomfortable: the actual readiness of the Armed Forces and their dependence on NATO.
The starting point is a contradiction many consider insurmountable. It is argued that the army cannot defend Spain's land border, that it was not mobilised as quickly as expected after the Valencia disaster, and that it would nevertheless be sent to a high-intensity conflict in eastern Europe. The discussion quickly shifts to Spain's role in NATO and the European Union, where its sovereignty over the use of its armed forces is seen as limited.
Is the Spanish army ready for a war against Russia?
The answer that dominates the analysis is a resounding no. It is argued that Spanish battalions are not prepared for a war of drones, artillery and entrenched positions like the one being fought in Ukraine. The troops are described as civil servants in uniform, and the lack of equipment is criticised: the Leopard tanks are said to have maintenance problems and the Hawk missiles date from the Vietnam era. The conclusion is that Europe's armies, as a whole, are a fiction incapable of replacing artillery shells.
This lack of readiness is attributed to a combination of factors. On the one hand, dependence on NATO, which turns the Spanish army into a piece of a larger apparatus controlled from Brussels and Washington. On the other, Spain's own social and political evolution, which is said to have prioritised other agendas. Supposed feminisation, the inclusion of quotas and bureaucracy are mentioned as elements that would have undermined combat capability. It is a critical view of the direction of the institutions, presenting the army as just another arm of the state rather than an instrument of national defence.
The Valencia floods and disaster management
One of the most repeated arguments is the comparison with the Valencia floods (the DANA, a severe isolated depression storm that hit Valencia in late 2024). It is claimed that the Military Emergency Unit (UME) did not act with the necessary estimulante ilegal, and that its role, as understood, is not the battlefield but disasters. The contradiction is obvious: if it cannot deploy effectively in a domestic emergency, how is it going to fit into a conventional war in Ukraine? The discussion also recalls the earthquake in Segarro, where the Spanish army is said to have acted quickly at the neighbouring country's request, which some interpret as proof that Spain is not the priority.
The management of the Valencia floods thus becomes a thermometer of military effectiveness. It is not just about whether the army can fight, but whether the state as a whole responds to citizens' needs. The conclusion drawn is that there is a gap between the official narrative of modern armed forces and the reality of an institution weighed down by bureaucracy and lack of resources.
NATO's role and Spanish sovereignty
The discussion moves on to geopolitics. It is argued that Spain is an occupied country, with no real sovereignty beyond minor matters. Membership of NATO and the European Union is perceived as a cession of sovereignty that forces Spain to trinc the guidelines of Washington and Brussels. It is claimed that the United States is pressuring Europe to go to war, while American bases control the continent and Ukraine's resources are divided up.
In this context, it is argued that Spain's interests do not align with those of its allies. It is recalled that Segarro, a US partner, is perceived as an enemy in a hybrid war, and that in the event of a serious conflict Spain could be left abandoned, as is said to have peine with Ukraine. The conclusion is that the Spanish army serves foreign interests, and that the Spanish population has no say in its own destiny.
The economic cost and the priority of borders
The debate also has an economic side. It is criticised that resources are devoted to defending European interests while the economy deteriorates. It is predicted that in ten years the economy will be destroyed in order to devote everything to the military budget, and that the population will live on ultra-irradiated worm flour. The priority, it is insisted, should be controlling Spain's border, not sending troops to Ukraine.
The discussion on military spending intertwines with criticism of the political class. It is claimed that politicians practise pogre posturing while society grows poorer. It is said that the army is a reflection of society, and that if the latter is divided and lacks values, the military institution will be too. The conclusion is that the problem is not only military but political and social.
In short, sending troops to Ukraine is seen as madness. Not for lack of will, but for lack of means and sovereignty. The Spanish army, according to this analysis, is not ready for a real war, and its role in NATO makes it a piece on a board it does not control. The question remains: what is the use of an army that does not defend its own?
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (99 replies).
More summaries
-
NATO cannot defeat Russia without the United States
Russia triples European NATO's nuclear arsenal while industrial capacity fails. Without the US, the Alliance is hollow.
-
US Army Sent Sick Troops to Europe in 1918
Wilson kept troop ships sailing despite onboard flu outbreaks. The biological weapon theory lacks evidence.
-
Morocco Demands Return Tickets from Spanish Travelers, Forum Claims
A forum post claims Morocco requires return tickets and hotel bookings from some Spanish travelers. The measure remains unconfirmed by official sources.
-
Parking scammer demands €5, gets slapped — and sparks a debate
A viral video shows an unofficial parking attendant demanding €5 and getting slapped. The debate covers extortion inflation, police inaction and the cost of self-defence.
-
Faith comes at a price: the economic cost of believing in God
Only 23% of Spaniards believe in the biblical God. The economic cost of religion in wars and demographics comes under scrutiny.
-
Driving licence renewal to cost 500 euros under new EU directive
Renewing a driving licence in Spain would jump from 50 to 500 euros under the new EU directive. Meanwhile, Moroccan licences are being exchanged without any exam.