Vox's position on two resolutions on European defense and Ukraine

On Wednesday, the European Parliament approved two resolutions on the defense of the Union and on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

A very revealing few hours about principles, patriotism and sovereignty
Some statements by Vox about Ukraine and the Spanish troops that must be clarified

The 'White Paper on the Future of European Defence''

The first resolution is entitled "White Paper on the future of European defence" (see PDF), and addresses issues relating to European defence cooperation, taking into account the following (point 5):

"Russia, supported by its allies including Belarus, China, North Korea and Iran, is the most significant direct and indirect threat to the EU and its security, as well as that of EU candidate countries and partners."

In response to this threat, the text states the following (point 6):

"Europe must take on greater responsibilities within NATO, especially when it comes to ensuring security on the European continent."

The text is very long, and I suggest everyone read it carefully to draw their own conclusions. Of course, there will be very different opinions on this matter. Personally, I believe the text is right in the direction of increasing European cooperation in defense matters, even in raising the advantages of joint arms purchases (something that has already been done within NATO), but it adds points that could give rise to friction, such as 66, which advocates "the creation of a council of defence ministers and for the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting for decisions in the European Council, the Council of Ministers and EU agencies such as the EDA, excluding military operations with an executive mandate."

As I pointed out here four years ago, defence is a national prerogative of the member countries of the European Union and must remain so, since the possession of Armed Forces is a characteristic clearly linked to national sovereignty, and it is logical that decisions relating to this area take this into account. It is another matter to talk about military cooperation, as is already the case with NATO, but without giving up that national competence.

Today, Europe faces a common threat: Russian imperialism, the greatest military threat to peace on the continent since the Second World War, as point 3 of the resolution rightly points out. This implies the need to increase international cooperation in defense matters, something that must be done while respecting the principle of national sovereignty.

Vox's arguments for voting against this resolution

It should be noted that this resolution was adopted with 419 votes in favor, 204 against, and 46 abstentions. The detailed results of this vote can be consulted here (PDF), on page 395. As for the Spanish representatives, the PP, the PSOE, and the PNV voted in favor. Vox and the far-left parties voted against it, a coincidence that several media outlets have pointed out in recent hours.

Yesterday, late in the evening, Vox Europa published a thread on Twitter justifying that vote against, stating the following:

"The so-called "rearmament plan" does not protect Spain, but rather aggrandizes Brussels. The PP and PSOE intend to implement

• A Council of Defense Ministers that can make decisions independently of Spain.
• Give Von der Leyen the power to purchase weapons, and not based on Spain's specific needs.
• End unanimity for decision-making and switch to a qualified majority system."

The third statement makes some sense in light of what the text indicates in its point 66. However, the text does not propose that said council can make decisions without Spain's consent, or that the EU can purchase weapons ignoring the needs of Spain and other member countries. In fact, Vox's message is accompanied by a screenshot that underlines a phrase from point 49 of the initial proposal ("the possibility of granting the Commission a mandate to acquire on its behalf"), which refers, as can be read just above, to "the joint acquisition of defense equipment," something that, as I have already pointed out, already exists within NATO.

Vox omits Russia among what it calls “real threats”

Vox also claims that "they are using the Russian invasion of Ukraine to seize powers from Member States". However, as can be seen by reviewing the text, the resolution does not propose any seizure of powers from member countries in matters of defense. What the text does propose, beyond the objections I have indicated, is the need for greater coordination and common effort in the face of a common threat. Incidentally, in relation to this common threat, Vox Europa has made the following statement:

"PP and PSOE give in to foreign interests while ignoring real threats: the Southern Border, terrorism, and hybrid attacks in Ceuta and Melilla."

What Vox said about the Russian threat in 2022 and 2023

From this statement, it can be deduced that Vox does not view Russian imperialism as a real threat. However, that is not what this party has suggested in the very recent past. On March 2, 2022, a few days after the start of the large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Santiago Abascal, president of Vox, stated from the rostrum of Congress (see video, point 1:51):

"Mr. Putin is guilty of a very serious violation of international law. He is guilty of a war that already threatens us and involves us all, without our being able to prevent it."

Likewise, on March 29, 2023, Major General (R) Alberto Asarta, Vox deputy, stated also from the Congress tribune (see video, point 2:49):

"The situation created by the invasion of Ukraine constitutes a threat to the Union as a whole. If any positive conclusion can be drawn from this terrible situation, it is the good coordination that is being carried out between the European Union and NATO, despite what the extreme left, a partner of the current Spanish government, may dislike, because it could not be otherwise, when 21 member countries of the Union belong to the Alliance. At this time, this mutual union and commitment, without fissures, is very important and necessary to confront the situation created by the illegal invasion".

A resolution reiterating EU support for Ukraine

On the other hand, and speaking of Ukraine, another resolution was passed yesterday in the European Parliament entitled "Continued Union unwavering support for Ukraine after three years of Russia's war of aggression" (see PDF). In its point 3, the European Parliament reiterates "its condemnation of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine as an existential threat to European security and stability; emphasises that the crime of aggression against Ukraine is a grave violation of international law and the UN Charter." The text encourages EU countries to continue sending military aid to Ukraine, and also criticizes the Trump administration's about-face regarding the US's position on Ukraine:

"Expresses deep concern over the apparent shift in the United States’ stance on Russia’s war of aggression, which has included openly blaming Ukraine for the ongoing war, suspending US military aid, and attempting to coerce Ukraine into relinquishing its legitimate right to self-defence and into making territorial concessions."

Vox's arguments to justify its abstention

This resolution was adopted by 442 votes in favor, 98 against, and 126 abstentions. The detailed results of this vote can be consulted here (PDF), on page 183. In this resolution, Vox has chosen to abstain.

This party has justified this position in the pages of its newspaper, La Gaceta de la Iberosfera, which includes these words from MEP Jorge Buxadé: "This is not the time to interfere in negotiations with political statements that can only cause harm". The news also states that the rejection of said resolution to Trump's strategy "represents a serious error that unnecessarily prolongs the conflict."

Trump's Ukraine Strategy

Recall that so far, Trump's strategy regarding this invasion has included saying that "Putin wants peace", blaming Ukraine for the Russian invasion, calling Zelensky a "dictator" but not Putin and voting alongside Russia and North Korea at the UN against a resolution rejecting Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I have been criticizing many of the decisions made by European politicians for years, but I do not understand this criticism of European support for Ukraine and this support for a position by Trump that is openly immoral, and I say this because it is immoral to accuse the invaded country of the invasion and vote with the invaders and their North Korean allies against a condemnation of the invasion. The end does not justify the means, and in this case the end does not even seem to be for Ukraine to achieve a just peace, but a peace that implies that the invasion is profitable for the invader and that implies a territorial loss for Ukraine.

What Vox said about supporting Ukraine and its territorial integrity

I return again to the quoted speech by Santiago Abascal from March 3, 2022 (watch video, point 13:36):

"Today, urgently, we must support Ukraine with all our means, with all the conviction, with all the necessary force, with precise economic and military means, both defensive and offensive, and with the most severe sanctions against Putin's criminal aggression."

I would also like to remind you that on 8 July 2024, Vox MEP Jorge Buxadé stated: "Our full support to Ukraine, to the defence of its national sovereignty and territorial integrity".

It is logical to ask how this position can be reconciled with the current unwavering support for Trump's strategy, clearly aimed at pressuring Ukraine to give up part of its territory, that is, to give up its national sovereignty, under the premise that "peace" must be achieved at any price.