More than forty years have passed since the referendum on Spain's membership in NATO. The vote took place on March 12, 1986, when the former mayor of Barcelona, Narcís Serra (PSC), was Minister of Defense. In these last four decades, Spanish society has changed a lot regarding its knowledge of foreign policy and defense matters, and the majority perceptions about the commitments that membership in the Western world implies. It would now make no sense to reconsider the country's role in its contribution in this area.

While Trump's and his administration's insults towards the European Union do not subside, European leaders agreed yesterday in Cyprus to shift into fifth gear to achieve a common defense system. What happened this Friday is a demonstration of how much this process needs to be accelerated. In the morning, we woke up to the news that an email circulating within the Pentagon proposed the option of "kicking out" Spain from NATO, as a warning to other countries that refuse to help in the United States and Israel's war against Iran. It is an internal email, not an official statement, and experts warn that it has little traction and at most would mean removing Spain from command or leadership of missions, but the threat is there. Mid-morning, the United States Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, dedicated part of his press conference to criticizing Europeans and pointing out that the conference of countries on the Strait of Hormuz, organized last week by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, was "ridiculous" and "ostentatious." Furthermore, he reproached them again for not participating in the war with the veiled threat that the "protection" they had from the United States until now has ended.

The Pentagon is reportedly considering suspending Spain from NATO, among other proposals to punish countries that have not supported American operations in the war with Iran. This is indicated by an email that has circulated among senior officials of the War Department —formerly the Department of Defense— of the United States, as a funcionario has assured the Reuters agency on condition of anonymity.

Cyprus is the only European Union member state that has received attacks of Iranian origin in the war initiated by the United States and Israel in the Middle East. The island is located about 200 kilometers from Lebanon – closer than to continental Europe – and is the easternmost community territory. Furthermore, due to its geographical location, it has great military importance. Even so, the country is not part of NATO and, therefore, does not have the military umbrella of the US army. A rare avis within the European club that serves as an excuse for EU leaders, who are meeting this Thursday and Friday precisely in Cyprus, to discuss how to defend themselves from potential attacks without relying on Donald Trump's US, which is increasingly distancing itself from European military interests.

It is true that Europe has benefited greatly from having a large part of its defense outsourced to the budgets of the United States, but Trump could reserve the role of the offended for a better cause. Because for decades, US security has been defended from American bases spread throughout Europe. And because 65% of European defense equipment orders are placed with North American companies, and that amounts to billions that have entered the American coffers and come from European budgets for decades.

Marco Rubio's speech in Munich on Saturday was the most intelligent piece of foreign policy the current US administration has produced so far. Intelligent because it was polished, well-argued, and seemingly conciliatory. In fact, European governments greeted the speech with relief, like someone expecting the coup de grâce and suddenly being offered a lifeline.

At the Munich Security Conference, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a conservative, took a step forward in assuming European leadership. In a carefully considered and calculated speech, Merz sought a balance between the desire to move towards greater European defense autonomy and the need to maintain the historic alliance with the United States. All of this stemmed from the assumption that a new era is dawning on the international stage, one that no longer adheres to the parameters of the post-World War II era. Merz and Macron acknowledged ongoing talks to "articulate France's nuclear deterrent for Europe," Macron stated, making it clear that a strong stance is necessary: ​​"Europe must become a geopolitical power." At this point, it remains to be seen what position London, which also possesses nuclear weapons, will adopt. In any case, in Munich, Merz, Macron, and Starmer made a public appearance together. The chancellor has opted for this path without abandoning Atlanticism, that is, within a NATO in which Europe assumes greater responsibility and, therefore, greater military strength. This European strengthening responds to the Western rebalancing unleashed by US President Donald Trump with his disruptive and contemptuous approach to Europe. What approach? So far, a four-move strategy. First, pressuring traditional partners to increase their military budgets—and to do so by spending on American industry. Second, flirting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the context of the war in Ukraine; this very Friday he insisted: "Russia wants to reach an agreement and Zelensky will have to make a move or he will lose a great opportunity." Third, emboldening the continental far right and thus weakening European unity. And fourth, with the threat of invading a European territory, Greenland (Denmark).

Indra aims to be the leading defense company in Spain. This ambition is also shared by the Spanish government, its largest shareholder through SEPI with 28% of the company's capital. However, the path is not smooth, at least not in recent weeks. The possibility that this leadership could be achieved through the acquisition of other companies—as is the case with the Escribano Group, co-founded by Indra's current president, Ángel Escribano, who still owns a stake in the company—has put the government on alert regarding its influence within the company and, consequently, its ability to control key decisions.

After weeks of maximalist threats about annexing Greenland, Donald Trump surprised everyone on Wednesday with the announcement of a "framework for a future agreement" on the Arctic island. What was surprising was that this announcement didn't come after he met with representatives from Greenland or Denmark, but rather with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has no jurisdiction over the Arctic island. Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, made this clear: "No one, apart from Greenland and Denmark, has the mandate to make agreements on Greenland without us. This is not going to happen." He also emphasized that no one had informed them of the terms of the supposed preliminary agreement: "I don't know what's in the agreement regarding my country." In a press conference from Nuuk, the head of the island's autonomous government reiterated that he had no details about the supposed preliminary agreement announced by Trump. He also recalled that, in a meeting in Washington last week at the level of foreign ministersIt was agreed to create a high-level working group to find a viable solution. "We have red lines that cannot be crossed," he insisted: respect for territorial integrity, international law, sovereignty, and Greenland's right to self-determination.

US President Donald Trump has once again surprised the world when in the speech at the Davos Forum He has claimed that Greenland was American territory and has demanded that Denmark, as well as the global network of European allies who support its sovereignty, "return" the "great chunk of ice." Where does the Republican leader's new argument for seizing the Arctic island come from?

Europe is beginning to raise its voice against Donald Trump, following his constant threats and the US president's recent publication of [a statement/article/etc.]. private messages from Emmanuel MacronThe French president has harshly criticized the Republican leader and, echoing Ursula von der Leyen, has advocated for a sovereign European Union, especially in relation to Washington. "We cannot accept a world order decided by those who claim to have a more powerful voice. [...] We prefer respect to bullies," the French leader emphasized in a rather harsh speech at the Davos Forum against the US president. Beyond indirectly labeling Trump a "bully," Macron described as "crazy" the potential situation in which the EU would have to apply harsh countermeasures against the United States because it wants to raise tariffs on European allies again. "That would be the consequence of unpredictability and pointless aggression," the French president pointed out. Macron also contrasted Europe, where "predictability and respect for the rule of law" reign, with a world "where international law is trampled and where the only law that seems to matter is that of the strongest, and imperialist ambitions are resurfacing." In this regard, the French president championed the European Union, with all its virtues and flaws, as a powerful economic area with great potential. "We need more stability, [...] and we prefer the rule of law to brutality. You are welcome in Europe," he added.

One of the first times I was able to vote was in the NATO referendum in 1986. A brief synopsis for younger readers: Spain joined the Atlantic Alliance in 1981, driven by the dying government of Calvo-Sotelo. It was one of the many concessions paid to the military and the Spanish establishment after the partial failure of the 23-F coup attempt. Felipe González promised to put the issue to a referendum if he came to power. The Catalan and Spanish left had a certain anti-American and anti-militarist bias, a product of the country's recent history: for Western Europe, the Americans were the ones who had defeated Hitler, but in Spain, they were the ones who had protected Franco in exchange for the installation of military bases. The polls indicated that, if a vote were held, the rejection of NATO would prevail. In 1982, the PSOE won with an absolute majority, initiating a rapid shift towards Atlanticism because—as we were told—without NATO, there would be no entry into the European Union. When González finally, dragging his feet, called the referendum, the PSOE defended the affirmative vote. Remaining in NATO won by a narrow margin throughout Spain, although the no vote won in Catalonia, as well as in the Basque Country and Navarre.the same old mapI was twenty years old and I felt my blood boiling, as Serrat sang, and I thought that a great opportunity had been lost to screw over President Reagan, who was a thousand men, and to crack the blog politics.

Donald Trump's threats to invade Greenland and, therefore, to attack another NATO partner As is the case with Denmark, such measures would signify the end of the very purpose of the military organization: mutual protection and deterrence, both internally and against third countries. In this context, increasing the European Union's military autonomy from the United States and seeking alternatives to the security offered by the Pentagon through the Atlantic Alliance is once again one of the main debates in European institutions.

Imagine NATO as a community of three villas with a swimming pool, gardens, sports courts, and an expensive security system. Three major owners pay the main dues: the United States, Europe, and Canada.

In Democracy in AmericaAlexis de Tocqueville said that in the United States, power manifests itself in society because Americans do not obey a man but the law. Of course, the French thinker and minister had that impression almost 200 years ago, when the Caesarist drift of the virtuous American political system in the hands of Donald Trump had not yet begun. One wonders: where are the famous checks and balances and the watchdogs?watchdog) who had historically denounced abuses of power in that country?

When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, there was little doubt that the US president would distance himself from Europe and unsettle NATO. But a year later, Trump's actions are far more disturbing than anyone could have predicted.Not only does he utterly despise European countries and their leaders, but he has also shamelessly ignored international norms to capture the president of Venezuela and seize control of the country. Now he is threatening Greenland, the autonomous Arctic territory belonging to Denmark, a member of the European Union and NATO. If he follows through on this threat, the consequences for the Atlantic Alliance could be devastating.

At first, a few months ago, it seemed like a jest More Trumpian. But no, this was serious. And it has been gaining momentum. For days now, the threat from the United States to the sovereignty of Greenland, an autonomous region within the Danish state, has been seriously growing. Now, just after the military removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Washington government's insistence on this strategic territory can only be interpreted from a European perspective as a further affront, not to mention a direct challenge.

The leaders of Europe's six major powers expressed their explicit support for Denmark and Greenland on Tuesday in a joint statement emphasizing that the Arctic island "belongs to its people." The message, signed by France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, in addition to Denmark, comes in response to repeated threats from US President Donald Trump and some of his top aides to seize the Danish territory for reasons of national security. The sword of Damocles hanging over the Arctic island is just one more of the shockwaves. Therefore, the White House military against Nicolás Maduro, the deposed president of Venezuela.

Five arrests in 24 hours related to the PSOE for alleged corruption cases and cases of alleged sexual harassment: after the Salazar case, and that of the president of the Lugo Provincial Council, Javier Izquierdo, senator and member of the party's executive committee, resigned yesterday.And yesterday, the PSOE failed to pass the deficit target, a necessary step before the budget can be processed.

Europe is at war with Russia on Ukrainian territory. February will mark four years since the start of the invasion. The drums of war are increasingly beating, signaling a wider conflict. Exaggeration? Self-serving alarmism? The truth is, the geopolitical dynamic is undeniably unpleasant and uncomfortable. No one wants this drift toward war and rearmament. But reality is what it is: Putin's expansionism is explicit and relentless, as are the failures so far of US President Donald Trump in his role as mediator and peacemaker—a role marked by the disruptive closeness he has shown to Moscow and by the pressure on Ukraine to rearm and assume its right to self-defense. This is the situation. It is important not to lose sight of it.