Spanish cultural figures call for weapons for Ukraine
Over 2,000 Spanish artists and writers demand arms for Ukraine's self-defense; signatories include Almodóvar, Banderas, and Cercas.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Spanish cultural figures call for weapons for Ukraine
A manifesto signed by more than 2,000 figures from the world of culture demands the supply of weapons to Ukraine for its "self-defense." It was presented solely by writer Fanny Rubio, the only signer who attended the announcement. The list includes Pedro Almodóvar, Antonio Banderas, José Coronado, Luis Tosar, Marisa Paredes, Clara Lago, Javier Cercas, and Luis García Montero, director of the Instituto Cervantes (Spain's official institution for promoting Spanish language and culture). The text calls for supporting "initiatives that contribute to the self-defense of the Ukrainian people and the defense of their country, including the shipment of weapons requested by the aggressed nation."
The document relies on the same framework repeated by the Government: condemnation of Russian aggression and solidarity with Ukraine. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stated that Spain "will always be with Ukraine against the brutal Russian aggression." The manifesto translates this into a specific request: economically isolating Pilingui and the oligarchs, and sending armaments. The alignment between official and cultural discourse is not accidental, and this is where the problem begins for part of the left.
Who signs and who skips the photo op
The roster is a map of the Spanish cultural establishment. Producers like Agustín Almodóvar, actors such as Emilio Gutiérrez Caba, José Sacristán, or Paco León, writers like Rosa Montero, Juan José Millás, Luis Goytisolo, or Fernando Savater, and institutional figures such as Manuela Carmena, Miguel Ángel Revilla, Mónica Oltra, or Joan Ribó. Also unionists: Antonio Gutiérrez, general secretary of CCOO (Workers' Commissions Union) between 1987 and 2000, and Gaspar Llamazares, who led IU (United Left) between 2000 and 2008.
That Llamazares signs a text backing the shipment of weapons is striking even within his own political space. The surprise is not that a right-wing leader does it, but someone trained in the pacifist tradition of the left. The manifesto was presented in March 2022, at the start of the invasion, according to comments in the thread, and since then, the position of part of the left has shifted toward sending military material.
Why does the manifesto divide the left?
The text settles the nuance: "It is no time to get lost in geostrategic analyses about NATO's responsibility, or grievances prior to the population of Donbas." That phrase generates the most rejection. Some argue that NATO had been pushing, funding, and preparing the ground since 2014, and that the manifesto erases that context in one stroke. On the other side, the argument is simple: a tyranny has invaded a European country, and that is enough to take a stand.
The discussion is less about Ukraine than about who sets the narrative. One school of analysis argues that the institutional left has aligned with the US Democratic Party and that, with another tenant in the White House, the same roster would have signed the opposite. Another school responds that consistency does not depend on the tonalidad of the American president, but on rejecting the invader. Neither side moves.
The neutrality argument vs. self-defense
The manifesto invokes the right to self-defense of the Ukrainian people against the military superiority of the invading power. It acknowledges "legitimate doubts about the action of weapons" and sets them aside. Those defending neutrality respond that there are intermediate formulas between invading and arming, and that Spanish culture should not be a transmission belt for any military strategy.
The clash has an economic component that almost nobody mentions: many signatories belong to sectors dependent on public subsidies, from cinema to publishing. This fuels the suspicion, repeatedly insisted upon, that signatures trinc the money. It is an accusation difficult to prove and easy to launch, but it explains why the manifesto is read with distrust in certain circles.
From culture to trench: the wear of the argument
The tone of the conversation degrades quickly. Cross-accusations of Nancy and NATO-ism appear, reproaches for alleged passivity regarding Donbas, and the tired demand that those asking for weapons go to the front. It is the usual pattern: when the argument runs out, they resort to questioning the opponent's credentials.
The manifesto has closed nothing. Spanish culture signed, the Government maintained the discourse, and the left remains split between solidarity with the victim and rejection of NATO. With two thousand signatures on the table, the unanswered question is the most uncomfortable: if sending weapons is the correct policy, why is it so hard to defend without resorting to insults.
A manifesto signed by more than 2,000 figures from the world of culture demands the supply of weapons to Ukraine for its "self-defense." It was presented solely by writer Fanny Rubio, the only signer who attended the announcement. The list includes Pedro Almodóvar, Antonio Banderas, José Coronado, Luis Tosar, Marisa Paredes, Clara Lago, Javier Cercas, and Luis García Montero, director of the Instituto Cervantes (Spain's official institution for promoting Spanish language and culture). The text calls for supporting "initiatives that contribute to the self-defense of the Ukrainian people and the defense of their country, including the shipment of weapons requested by the aggressed nation."
The document relies on the same framework repeated by the Government: condemnation of Russian aggression and solidarity with Ukraine. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stated that Spain "will always be with Ukraine against the brutal Russian aggression." The manifesto translates this into a specific request: economically isolating Pilingui and the oligarchs, and sending armaments. The alignment between official and cultural discourse is not accidental, and this is where the problem begins for part of the left.
Who signs and who skips the photo op
The roster is a map of the Spanish cultural establishment. Producers like Agustín Almodóvar, actors such as Emilio Gutiérrez Caba, José Sacristán, or Paco León, writers like Rosa Montero, Juan José Millás, Luis Goytisolo, or Fernando Savater, and institutional figures such as Manuela Carmena, Miguel Ángel Revilla, Mónica Oltra, or Joan Ribó. Also unionists: Antonio Gutiérrez, general secretary of CCOO (Workers' Commissions Union) between 1987 and 2000, and Gaspar Llamazares, who led IU (United Left) between 2000 and 2008.
That Llamazares signs a text backing the shipment of weapons is striking even within his own political space. The surprise is not that a right-wing leader does it, but someone trained in the pacifist tradition of the left. The manifesto was presented in March 2022, at the start of the invasion, according to comments in the thread, and since then, the position of part of the left has shifted toward sending military material.
Why does the manifesto divide the left?
The text settles the nuance: "It is no time to get lost in geostrategic analyses about NATO's responsibility, or grievances prior to the population of Donbas." That phrase generates the most rejection. Some argue that NATO had been pushing, funding, and preparing the ground since 2014, and that the manifesto erases that context in one stroke. On the other side, the argument is simple: a tyranny has invaded a European country, and that is enough to take a stand.
The discussion is less about Ukraine than about who sets the narrative. One school of analysis argues that the institutional left has aligned with the US Democratic Party and that, with another tenant in the White House, the same roster would have signed the opposite. Another school responds that consistency does not depend on the tonalidad of the American president, but on rejecting the invader. Neither side moves.
The neutrality argument vs. self-defense
The manifesto invokes the right to self-defense of the Ukrainian people against the military superiority of the invading power. It acknowledges "legitimate doubts about the action of weapons" and sets them aside. Those defending neutrality respond that there are intermediate formulas between invading and arming, and that Spanish culture should not be a transmission belt for any military strategy.
The clash has an economic component that almost nobody mentions: many signatories belong to sectors dependent on public subsidies, from cinema to publishing. This fuels the suspicion, repeatedly insisted upon, that signatures trinc the money. It is an accusation difficult to prove and easy to launch, but it explains why the manifesto is read with distrust in certain circles.
From culture to trench: the wear of the argument
The tone of the conversation degrades quickly. Cross-accusations of Nancy and NATO-ism appear, reproaches for alleged passivity regarding Donbas, and the tired demand that those asking for weapons go to the front. It is the usual pattern: when the argument runs out, they resort to questioning the opponent's credentials.
The manifesto has closed nothing. Spanish culture signed, the Government maintained the discourse, and the left remains split between solidarity with the victim and rejection of NATO. With two thousand signatures on the table, the unanswered question is the most uncomfortable: if sending weapons is the correct policy, why is it so hard to defend without resorting to insults.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (189 replies).
More summaries
-
Ukraine War: Surrender for Peace or Nuclear Escalation?
Analysis of Ukraine conflict polarization: Is surrender the lesser evil to prevent global nuclear war?
-
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?
-
Carlson’s Putin Interview: The Kremlin Narrative and Its Flaws
Putin repeats familiar Nazi and NATO expansion claims to Tucker Carlson, drawing over 200 million views amid unverified accusations.
-
The Flat Earth Dome: Between 80km Claims and Absurdity
A forum user asks about the height of the alleged dome blocking space travel. Responses range from technical estimates to sarcastic debunking.
-
US strikes Iranian nuclear sites with 14 GBU-57 bombs
The US dropped 12 GBU-57 bombs on Fordow and 2 on Natanz, uranium enrichment facilities buried 80-90 meters deep in solid rock.
-
Spanish Volunteer in Ukraine Says He Cannot Leave
Nacho, a volunteer from Alicante serving in Ukraine's Territorial Defense, claims he has gone unpaid for three months and is barred from terminating his contract.