Podcast Summary: Más de uno (Onda Cero)

Episode: "Tertulia: Sánchez contra la guerra"

Date: March 5, 2026
Host: Carlos Alsina

Overview

In this episode, Carlos Alsina and his panel discuss the Spanish government’s response to the escalating conflict involving the US, Israel, and Iran, with a sharp focus on President Pedro Sánchez's revival of the slogan "No a la guerra" (“No to war”). The episode also delves into the interlinking of domestic politics, electoral calculations, implications for alliances (especially with the US and the EU), and the shifting positions around military involvement, with additional context on the upcoming elections in Castilla y León and reflections on public opinion toward war in Spain.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Media Analysis and Satirical Tone on the News (00:12 – 12:10)

• The episode opens with Alsina reviewing the day’s press, highlighting how quickly political satire can turn real, referencing Trump’s administration accusing Spain of being a risk to the US.
  Quote:

  "Hoy lo que suena broma hoy, mañana puede ir en serio." —Carlos Alsina [00:12]

• Analysis of press headlines centering on Trump’s “hostility” toward Spain and Sánchez’s effort to revive the slogan “No a la guerra”.

• Editorials from El País, La Vanguardia, La Razón, and El Mundo are compared, emphasizing their skepticism regarding the efficacy of slogans in complex international crises.

• The “No a la guerra” slogan is portrayed as an emotive trigger rather than policy: Quote:

  "No a la guerra. No es un argumento, es un disparador sentimental." —Rafa Latorre [09:28]

2. Contradictions and Political Calculus Behind "No a la guerra" (12:11 – 25:01)

• The panel considers whether Sánchez is genuinely defending peace or leveraging anti-war sentiment for electoral gains, especially with upcoming elections in mind.

• Discussion of the difference between refusing US requests for base use in offensive operations versus offering military aid to Cyprus—a distinction being made between “illegal aggression” and “solidarity with a fellow EU member.”

• The paradox of supporting “No a la guerra” while selling arms internationally and making selective interventions is called out.

• There is sharp criticism about handling the conflict primarily via tweets, slogans, or video statements without parliamentary debate. Quote:

  "No se defiende la soberanía nacional cuando ignoras a quienes la representan." —David Mejía (as quoted by Alsina) [02:50]

• The political recycling of old slogans is highlighted, with allusions to the 2003 Iraq War protests.

3. Debate: Military Support vs. Slogan Consistency (25:02 – 38:00)

• The roundtable becomes lively over whether providing military aid to Cyprus (e.g., anti-drone units, air defense, or a Spanish frigate) still constitutes “not being at war.”

• The issue of consistency and coherence in foreign policy: if "No a la guerra" is absolute, does aiding defensively in one part of the conflict undermine the slogan?

• John Müller and Rubén Amón point to Europe's interest and the logistical challenges of US-led operations against Iran, the precarious situation with bases in Spain, and the importance of distinguishing between offense and defense.

• Memorable exchange:

  “No a la guerra es lo que decía Podemos respecto de la guerra de Ucrania… Pero para Podemos aquello significaba que España se metía en la guerra de Ucrania y que formábamos parte de ese conflicto... Pero es que los ucranianos eran los agredidos.” —Carlos Alsina [25:01]

4. Electoral Calculations: Castilla y León and Wartime Politics (28:20 – 51:42)

• Interview segment with Carlos Martínez (PSOE candidate for Castilla y León) on whether foreign policy and anti-war slogans can influence local elections.
• Martínez discusses the economic impact of war, especially on the agricultural sector, and the need for direct state support to offset rising costs in fuel and fertilizers due to conflict.
• Alsina pushes on the need for Sánchez to defend government policy in parliament, not just media statements. Martínez affirms the importance of parliamentary accountability.
• The section also touches on regional governance, alliances, and issues of party coherence about governance with or without Vox.

5. Public Opinion and War: Demoscopic Data (59:56 – 65:38)

• Urquizu presents survey data comparing Spanish attitudes toward war in 1991, 2003, and 2026:

  • In 1991, majority believed the Gulf War was justified by international law and blamed Saddam Hussein.
  • In 2003, Spanish opposition to Iraq War was massive and transversal.
  • In 2026, 80% see Trump as a threat to world peace; anti-war sentiment remains strong, especially among voters left of center.

  Quote:

  "La opinión pública española está en contra de seguir las órdenes de Trump." —Urquizu [60:08]

• The absence of extended public or parliamentary debate before military decisions is flagged as a contemporary deficit compared to previous conflicts.

6. Final Thoughts: Geopolitics, Logistics, and the Limits of Slogans (65:39 – 69:31)

• Analysis of military logistics: the crucial role Spanish bases play in US operations and the strain of supply lines if conflict extends.
• A technical note on missile interceptions—the rapidly depleting anti-missile stocks in the West, and the dangers of escalation if critical supply lines are compromised (e.g., the Strait of Hormuz).
• Economic consequences: immediate impact of the war on energy prices and stock markets.
• Skepticism remains on whether “No a la guerra” is politically sustainable or just a rhetorical device with limited practical guidance for complex international crises.

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• On the nature of slogans:

  "No a la guerra. No es un argumento, es un disparador sentimental." —Rafa Latorre [09:28]

• On the need for real debate:

  "Hay que ir al Parlamento e informar al líder de la oposición, porque confiarlo todo a un eslogan es ponérselo muy fácil al trumpismo español." —Carlos Alsina, quoting El País editorial [02:20]

• On selective interventionism:

  "Podríamos ver al presidente encabezando el no a la guerra y a la vez enviando una fragata a Chipre… a defender a Chipre de un ataque iraní." —Carlos Alsina [15:36]

• On government accountability:

  "Me parece que la casa de todos, el Parlamento, tiene que ser donde se decidan las grandes cuestiones del Ejecutivo." —Carlos Martínez [30:47]

• On public opinion and foreign control:

  "La opinión pública española está en contra de seguir las órdenes de Trump." —Urquizu [60:08]

Important Timestamps

• 00:12 – 12:10: Press roundup, the return of “No a la guerra”, satire meets reality
• 12:11 – 25:01: Contradictions within the government’s anti-war stance, discussion on the meaning of military “support” vs “intervention”
• 25:02 – 28:19: 'No a la guerra' and its implications for the logic of intervention
• 28:20 – 51:42: Interview with Carlos Martínez: war, elections, and government accountability
• 59:56 – 65:38: Public opinion about war and foreign policy, historical data analysis by Urquizu
• 65:39 – 69:31: Logistics, military realities, and closing remarks

Conclusion

The episode deftly illustrates the complexities and contradictions facing the Spanish government (and society) as it navigates the turbulent waters of international conflict, domestic electoral priorities, and public sentiment. The panel’s skepticism towards simple anti-war slogans underscores the difficulty of aligning rhetoric, realpolitik, and democratic accountability in times of crisis. The “No a la guerra” refrain is both a nod to Spain’s political past and a lens for understanding current fault lines between domestic and international priorities.