Vox's position on a European resolution on the Russian invasion of Ukraine

This week, the European Parliament has approved a new resolution regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Abascal reiterates Vox's support for Israel and its condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Abascal's excellent speech pointing out Sánchez's favors to Putin and Hamas

The approved text can be read here. It is entitled "Russia’s disinformation and historical falsification to justify its war of aggression against Ukraine." The European Parliament has announced that the text was approved by 480 votes in favour, 58 against and 48 abstentions. The resolution is based on a joint motion by five parliamentary groups, including the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, which includes Giorgia Meloni's party.

Among other things, the text reiterates "its condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of Russia’s unprovoked, illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine; calls on Russia to immediately terminate all military activities in Ukraine and to completely and unconditionally withdraw all forces, proxies and military equipment from the entire internationally recognised territory of Ukraine."

The votes of each Member of the European Parliament on that motion can be consulted here. As for the joint vote on the resolution, the result can be seen here. The text was massively supported by the ECR and 34 MEPs from Patriots for Europe (PfE) also voted in favour, including Jordan Bardella, president of the Rassemblement National (RN), Marine Le Pen's party.

Curiously, 27 PfE MEPs abstained, including five of the six Vox MEPs: Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Jorge Martín Frías and Margarita de la Pisa Carrión. Hermann Tertsch did not participate in this voting.

As I have said many times (regular readers of the blog can attest to this), I have been a Vox voter since the party's appearance in January 2014. In the 2024 European elections I voted for Vox, among other reasons in recognition of its repeated support for Ukraine in the face of the Russian invasion. I cannot explain the abstention of those five Vox MEPs, and even less so taking into account the vote in favour of the MEPs from Le Pen's party, which previously displayed a clear affinity for Russia. I expect an explanation from Vox on this, because so far no one has offered one.

Finally, I reiterate that this is an independent blog and that my only commitment is to the principles that I have been defending for 20 years on these pages. I have been defending the cause of Ukraine's independence and national sovereignty and will continue to do so., as a matter of coherence and because I find it intolerable that a power like Russia believes it has the right to attack and threaten its neighbouring countries, as Putin has been doing since the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008.

+ UPDATED 20:45h: An hour ago, Vox MEP Hermann Tertsch posted a Twitter thread explaining the reason for Vox's abstention from the resolution. In that thread he states the following:

I explain this for those who are surprised that VOX abstained in a vote on support for Ukraine. It is not abstaining because of the support for Ukraine that VOX always expresses as a defender of national sovereignty and freedom. As well as its rejection of the oligarchic tyranny led by Vladimir Putin that crushes the Russians and threatens and attacks the neighbors.

He abstained because the resolution contains points that have nothing to do with Ukraine and are part of the Brussels apparatus' emergency plan to strangle freedom of expression in Europe and not oppose new "cancellations" of the popular will in case that what is freely expressed is not liked. As in Romania.

Some Twitter users have singled out point 10 of that resolution as the most objectionable. That point states: "Expresses deep concern about the recent announcements from social media companies’ leadership concerning relaxing their rules on fact-checking and moderation and how this will further enable Russia’s disinformation campaign around the world."

For my part, and as Francisco José Contreras has rightly pointed out, I believe that Hermann Tertsch's explanation makes sense. What would be appreciated is if Vox would explain this position earlier, through its communication channels, in the same way that it has explained its position regarding the resolution on Venezuela that I commented on here this afternoon.