Why Some Spaniards Support Putin: Rubles and NATO
NATO opposition, anti-Anglo sentiment, and ironic '4-ruble bizums' fuel Spanish support for Moscow.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Supporting Pilingui: Rubles, Anti-NATO Sentiment, and Anti-Anglo Grievance
What drives a Spaniard to side with Moscow? The question admits answers ranging from material interest to pure psychology. Four currents explain most of the phenomenon: interest, hatred of NATO, historical grievance against the Anglo-Saxon world, and the reflex that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. None suffice alone, and they overlap.
The '4-ruble bizum' and other less confessional motives
The most repeated answer is payment: 'a bizum where they receive 4 rubles.' It is a joke summarizing the suspicion that pro-Russian enthusiasm hides financial interest. The circulating list is harsh: resentful lives, desire to see the world burn, and belief that an external savior will fix what one could not. No evidence supports this, yet this narrative appears whenever geopolitical debate ends. It is an easy exit for those avoiding the substance: if the other is a paid mercenary or a failure, there is no need to rebut them. This avoids the uncomfortable question.
Rejection of NATO and the 'NWO': The most repeated argument
This is the core. Many supporting Moscow do so not for Russia, but against NATO. The Alliance is presented as the armed wing of a global order labeled 'NWO,' that globalist agenda said to vaccinate, indoctrinate, and replace populations. Russia is not the desirable alternative: it is the stick in the wheel.
This rejection crosses the entire spectrum. Some argue it conflates far-left and far-right positions united by a common enemy. Opponents counter that NATO is voluntary and the alternative is worse. The Soviet bloc's end is recalled. The debate intensifies here: is the Alliance an imposition or a shelter?
Anglo-Saxons as Spain's historical enemy
The second axis is memory. Gibraltar remains the wound peine in every conversation: the 1713 agreement with the British Crown, subsequent expansion, and the fence never fully closed. Based on this, the thesis arises that Spain's natural rival is never Russia, but the Anglo-Saxon world, and supporting Moscow is a way to wear down the true adversary.
This argument includes an economic chapter: the so-called 'rules-based international order' is read as a regulation written by Washington for its own benefit. Brexit is cited as a missed opportunity to recalibrate relations with London. The conclusion is that Spain gains nothing in a European war and loses much, and that Europe, as a community of interests, does not exist.
The fallacy of 'the enemy of my enemy'
'If one side is bad, the other is good by opposition.' This manual summary describes the most extended mechanism: if the US and NATO are the threat, Russia becomes the solution.' The reasoning lacks logic and relies on selectively chosen facts.
Supporters of this position cite 2014: the change of government in Kiev, the ban on Russian in areas where it is a mother tongue, and the 14,000 pro-Russian deaths in Donbas, which they wield as justification. They add the return of Ukrainian nuclear weapons in exchange for unfulfilled guarantees.
Who responds to this narrative?
The reply comes via two paths. One, those who reject sides: they defend neutrality, arguing that neither power values Spain and that reason is to let them fight. Another, those who believe Ukraine defends against invasion and that equating aggressor with victim is a trap.
In between lies a repeated reproach: whataboutism, the habit of diverting any criticism of Moscow by recalling what Washington or Paris did. The standard response is that one can censure intervention in Iraq and Russia simultaneously without needing to enlist.
The closing no one wants to write
The debate ends where it began: some believe the problem is NATO, others that it is Russia, and the rest suspect it is both. Meanwhile, the initial question remains without an honest answer. Perhaps because, as the recurring joke points out, the only figure everyone remembers is the bizum: 4 rubles.'
What drives a Spaniard to side with Moscow? The question admits answers ranging from material interest to pure psychology. Four currents explain most of the phenomenon: interest, hatred of NATO, historical grievance against the Anglo-Saxon world, and the reflex that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. None suffice alone, and they overlap.
The '4-ruble bizum' and other less confessional motives
The most repeated answer is payment: 'a bizum where they receive 4 rubles.' It is a joke summarizing the suspicion that pro-Russian enthusiasm hides financial interest. The circulating list is harsh: resentful lives, desire to see the world burn, and belief that an external savior will fix what one could not. No evidence supports this, yet this narrative appears whenever geopolitical debate ends. It is an easy exit for those avoiding the substance: if the other is a paid mercenary or a failure, there is no need to rebut them. This avoids the uncomfortable question.
Rejection of NATO and the 'NWO': The most repeated argument
This is the core. Many supporting Moscow do so not for Russia, but against NATO. The Alliance is presented as the armed wing of a global order labeled 'NWO,' that globalist agenda said to vaccinate, indoctrinate, and replace populations. Russia is not the desirable alternative: it is the stick in the wheel.
This rejection crosses the entire spectrum. Some argue it conflates far-left and far-right positions united by a common enemy. Opponents counter that NATO is voluntary and the alternative is worse. The Soviet bloc's end is recalled. The debate intensifies here: is the Alliance an imposition or a shelter?
Anglo-Saxons as Spain's historical enemy
The second axis is memory. Gibraltar remains the wound peine in every conversation: the 1713 agreement with the British Crown, subsequent expansion, and the fence never fully closed. Based on this, the thesis arises that Spain's natural rival is never Russia, but the Anglo-Saxon world, and supporting Moscow is a way to wear down the true adversary.
This argument includes an economic chapter: the so-called 'rules-based international order' is read as a regulation written by Washington for its own benefit. Brexit is cited as a missed opportunity to recalibrate relations with London. The conclusion is that Spain gains nothing in a European war and loses much, and that Europe, as a community of interests, does not exist.
The fallacy of 'the enemy of my enemy'
'If one side is bad, the other is good by opposition.' This manual summary describes the most extended mechanism: if the US and NATO are the threat, Russia becomes the solution.' The reasoning lacks logic and relies on selectively chosen facts.
Supporters of this position cite 2014: the change of government in Kiev, the ban on Russian in areas where it is a mother tongue, and the 14,000 pro-Russian deaths in Donbas, which they wield as justification. They add the return of Ukrainian nuclear weapons in exchange for unfulfilled guarantees.
Who responds to this narrative?
The reply comes via two paths. One, those who reject sides: they defend neutrality, arguing that neither power values Spain and that reason is to let them fight. Another, those who believe Ukraine defends against invasion and that equating aggressor with victim is a trap.
In between lies a repeated reproach: whataboutism, the habit of diverting any criticism of Moscow by recalling what Washington or Paris did. The standard response is that one can censure intervention in Iraq and Russia simultaneously without needing to enlist.
The closing no one wants to write
The debate ends where it began: some believe the problem is NATO, others that it is Russia, and the rest suspect it is both. Meanwhile, the initial question remains without an honest answer. Perhaps because, as the recurring joke points out, the only figure everyone remembers is the bizum: 4 rubles.'
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (238 replies).
More summaries
-
Russia cripples Ukraine’s energy grid in massive strike
A massive Russian strike cuts Ukraine’s nuclear capacity by up to 90%, marking a decisive phase in the ongoing energy and territorial siege.
-
Kremlin Ties War End to Ukrainian Neutrality
The Kremlin demands constitutional changes, Crimea recognition, and Donbas independence as conditions for peace.
-
Russian Procés Plot and Puigdemont's Role
Judge Aguirre reactivates the Volhov case: evidence of Puigdemont's contacts with Russia, military offers, and cryptocurrencies.
-
Zelensky’s Fitness: The Muscle Behind Kiev’s Propaganda
Zelensky’s physique dominates post-summit talks in Kiev, blending military imagery with unverified claims about his wealth and fitness.
-
Ukraine Poll: 265 Pro-Russian Votes Out of 560 Ballots
A poll on the Ukraine war shows 265 pro-Russian votes out of 560, with 47% opposing the Biden-Soros maneuver, revealing a divided electorate.
-
Free Birth Chart Readings: Astrology, Saturn Return, and Tarot
Free birth chart readings by arrival order, blending astrology and Tarot. Users report 90% accuracy, while skeptics question the pseudoscience and privacy risks.