International politics is undergoing a profound transformation that affects not only balances of power, but also the very nature of foreign action. In a context marked by protracted wars, great-power rivalries, and the erosion of multilateralism, security and defense have moved to the center of international priorities. Classical diplomacy—based on negotiation, mediation, and gradual compromise—has increasingly given way to a more militarized language.
Spain is not immune to this dynamic. Although it is not a first-rank military power, its foreign policy is increasingly shaped by an international environment in which deterrence logic, military deployment, and hard capabilities carry greater weight than diplomatic influence. This shift poses a strategic dilemma for a country whose international projection has historically relied more on diplomacy than on force.
From Preventive Diplomacy to the Logic of Security
For decades, European foreign policy—and Spain’s in particular—was built around the concept of preventive diplomacy: anticipating conflicts, reducing tensions, and managing crises before they escalated into open confrontation. This approach, while never without limitations, placed diplomacy at the core of stability-building efforts.
Today, that paradigm has clearly weakened. The accumulation of armed conflicts, the perception of direct threats, and growing mistrust among international actors have shifted the focus toward risk management through military capabilities. Security ceases to be just one domain of foreign policy and becomes its structural backbone.
Spain has entered this new framework without having fully redefined its role. Adaptation has been more reactive than strategic, generating constant tension between external expectations and real capacities.
The Securitization of Discourse and Its Political Effects
Militarization does not affect instruments alone; it also reshapes the language of foreign policy. Concepts such as threat, deterrence, flank, forward defense, or strategic resilience increasingly dominate public and diplomatic debate. This securitization narrows the space for alternative approaches and reinforces a binary vision of international relations.
For Spain, this shift carries significant political implications. By adopting a discourse aligned with the prevailing security logic, the room for a differentiated diplomacy shrinks. Foreign action is increasingly assessed in terms of military contribution rather than mediation capacity, cultural influence, or economic projection.
This displacement is not neutral: it redefines what is considered a “credible” foreign policy and penalizes states whose strength does not lie primarily in military power.
Allied Expectations and Real Capabilities
One of Spain’s main challenges is the gap between expectations and capabilities. As an active member of international alliances, Spain is expected to contribute visibly to operations, deployments, and security commitments. Yet its military, budgetary, and logistical resources remain limited compared to those of other allied powers.
This gap creates constant pressure to expand Spain’s external military presence, often without a deep strategic debate about ultimate objectives. Participation becomes an end in itself—aimed at maintaining allied credibility—rather than a tool integrated into a coherent foreign policy vision.
The risk is evident: Spain may be drawn into a logic of military overrepresentation without real capacity to influence the strategies it helps to implement.
NATO’s Role and Strategic Subordination
The growing centrality of NATO in Europe’s security architecture reinforces this dynamic. While the Alliance provides an indispensable framework for protection, it also shapes the priorities and language of its members’ foreign policies.
For Spain, NATO membership entails clear security benefits, but also a degree of strategic subordination. Key decisions are taken in forums where Spain’s relative weight is limited, while the commitments assumed have a direct impact on its foreign policy and domestic public opinion.
The militarization of foreign action is thus reinforced by an institutional environment in which hard security prevails over other dimensions of international politics.
Diplomacy in the Background and the Loss of Initiative
One of the most concerning effects of this process is the loss of prominence of Spanish diplomacy. As foreign policy becomes increasingly securitized, diplomatic initiative diminishes. Spain acts more as a participant than as a driver; more as an executor than as a designer of strategies.
This shift has long-term consequences. Diplomacy is an asset built over time through presence, continuity, and credibility. If it is systematically relegated, it becomes difficult to recover when circumstances once again require negotiation, mediation, or political reconstruction.
Moreover, an excessively militarized foreign policy tends to be less flexible and more costly, both in budgetary terms and in political capital.
Public Opinion and Democratic Legitimacy
Militarization also poses an internal challenge: the democratic legitimacy of foreign action. In Spain, public opinion has traditionally shown greater acceptance of diplomacy than of the prolonged use of military instruments.
As foreign policy is increasingly framed in security terms, the need to justify external commitments grows, particularly among a citizenry that does not always perceive a direct threat. Without a clear and transparent narrative, the risk of a disconnect between foreign policy and public opinion increases.
This gap can become a source of political vulnerability, especially in contexts of prolonged engagement or lack of visible results.
The European Union and the Temptation of the Military Shortcut
The European Union is not exempt from this trend. Faced with the difficulty of building a truly common foreign policy, the security dimension often appears as a functional shortcut: coordinating military capabilities is easier than reaching consensus on complex diplomatic strategies.
For Spain, this European approach reinforces pressure toward militarization while limiting opportunities to project its own diplomacy within the EU framework. European foreign policy becomes more visible, but not necessarily more strategic.
Strategic Risks for a Middle Power
For a middle power such as Spain, excessive militarization of foreign policy entails clear risks. It can dilute its distinctive profile, reduce its mediation capacity, and increase its exposure to conflicts over whose resolution it has little control.
Furthermore, a security-driven foreign policy tends to be reactive, focused on responding to crises rather than anticipating or shaping them. This reactivity undermines long-term influence and turns foreign policy into a sequence of partial commitments.
Outlook: Restoring Balance Without Renouncing Security
The challenge for Spain is not to choose between diplomacy and security, but to rebuild a balance that integrates both dimensions coherently. Defense is now an indispensable component of foreign policy, but it cannot become its only language.
Spain retains diplomatic, cultural, and political assets that remain relevant in a fragmented world. Reclaiming space for diplomacy does not imply weakness, but strategic intelligence.
In an increasingly militarized international environment, the true strength of a middle power lies in its ability to combine commitment with autonomy, security with diplomacy, and allied loyalty with its own strategic vision. Renouncing that balance would amount to accepting a subordinated—and ultimately less effective—foreign policy.
Copyright. All rights reserved. Prensamedia Group.
