[REVISTAEJERCITOS] Are Ceuta and Melilla in danger? This is an increasingly common question in the press. On the one hand, a war between Spain and Morocco seems unthinkable at present, given that both states are important trading partners and share common allies such as France and the United States. On the other hand, any change in Moroccan domestic politics or on the international stage could precipitate a confrontation that goes beyond the diplomatic arena, as there are significant points of contention on key issues such as territorial waters and sovereignty over the Spanish cities in North Africa. Is Spain still in a position to defend Ceuta and Melilla and the rest of its North African territories, or has Morocco's rearmament program definitively tipped the scales in Rabat's favor?
"My children, we are going to abandon this little corral that we have defended like heroes due to the lack of provisions and ammunition; weep for your brothers whom you leave without burial, now we are going to continue defending ourselves with the little ammunition that we have left and when this runs out, use the bayonet; I, my children, will continue to command you as I have done until now."
-- Infantry Commander Julio Benítez
With these words, Infantry Commander Julio Benítez addressed the besieged troops of Igueriben for the last time. Minutes later, only a dozen of the 350 men defending the position would emerge alive. This marked the beginning of what has gone down in history as the "Disaster of Annual," where more than ten thousand men, including their commander, General Silvestre, would lose their lives in July 1921 at the position of the same name, near Melilla.
This event would profoundly mark the Spanish Army, although it is only the bloodiest chapter of the many that occurred during the Spanish protectorate of Morocco, which extended for a century, from the conflict of 1859 or the first war of Africa, until the end of the protectorate in 1961 (Sidi Ifni would be handed over peacefully in 1969).
Those conflicts shaped the Army, giving rise to some of its elite units (and its most decorated, due to their performance in these lands), such as the Legion and the Regulares. It was also the scene of our first aerial bombardments and the use of tanks (in 1913 and 1922 respectively).
But the wars in Morocco will not be the only mark that the territory leaves on our Army, a mark that still lingers in the minds of some generals who were young officers in 1975, when the ignominious withdrawal from the Spanish Sahara was undertaken, claimed by Morocco and Mauritania and still today, 45 years later, immersed in a jurisdictional limbo.
Given what happened in those days, we can say that it is a true miracle that the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla remain Spanish, since a part of society and political parties, with no knowledge beyond an obtuse geographical logic (they may be in Africa, but they have been part of our country for 500 years and have been Christian enclaves since Roman times) have given wings to the absurd claim of Morocco, a nation that did not obtain its independence until 1956, to request their annexation; as if the invasion, not authorized by the United Nations, of the Spanish Sahara had not been plunder enough.
This situation led the emboldened government of Mohammed VI to test the resolve of the Spanish government by seizing Perejil Island in 2002, a small rock located off the African coast west of Ceuta. The response from José María Aznar's administration was forceful, excessive, and even ridiculous, according to the aforementioned sources, but necessary to send the message the young and ambitious Moroccan monarch sought.
Although there was no military confrontation as such, it brought back into the spotlight the century-old and forgotten conflict in Morocco, now focused on the defense possibilities of the aforementioned cities against a possible aggression.
This account must begin by making it clear that today, with Spain being a major investor in Morocco and part of solid political and military alliances, and with the neighboring country far from Islamist influence, clearly pro-Western and a preferred partner of France and the United States, such a conflict is very unlikely.
But it is equally true that this same situation existed in 2002, when the Perejil Island crisis set off alarm bells, compounded by the persistent suspicion regarding the stance that allies who excluded these territories from the NATO accession treaty would take. In fact, on that occasion, the diplomatic response from some of them was rather lukewarm, if not openly hostile.
According to former President Aznar in his memoirs, Jacques Chirac even apologized to him for putting France's economic interests before the policy of European solidarity in foreign affairs (even going so far as to saturate the signal of the main satellite that Spain had for its communications, the Helios, which was French) that France initiated precisely when the then Prime Minister Francois Mitterrand gave his unconditional support to the United Kingdom in the Falklands crisis (despite having strong commercial ties with Argentina).
At that time of great European weakness, it was the American administration of George W. Bush, with its Secretary of State Colin Powell at the helm, that intervened on behalf of Spain and stability in the Mediterranean.
It's understandable that Aznar later joined the fight against terrorism and the intervention in Iraq, with the famous Azores photo. It goes without saying that the current occupants of the White House and the Moncloa Palace are far removed from those of that time.
This scenario, in which Spain has to manage on its own in the defense of Ceuta and Melilla, at least in the purely military aspect, imposes serious limitations on the operational analysis of a hypothetical confrontation.
From Morocco's perspective, this forces them to keep the conflict a purely regional matter, or more specifically, confined to the disputed territory for diplomatic reasons. It is obvious that an attack on the Spanish mainland or the Canary Islands, as well as attacks on Spanish vessels in its territorial waters, would allow Spain to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, resulting in the military, political, and economic collapse of the Alawite kingdom.
It's easy to imagine the current Spanish government letting the Moroccans have them.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/06/2026 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I believe the population of Ceuta is now almost half Moslem, which I suspect means Moroccan “refugees”, and that means Spain is providing housing and all sorts of aid so that they don’t suffer the difficulties of poverty.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Mikhail Kucherov
[REGNUM] 85 years ago, on August 5, 1941, the heroic defense of Odessa began, a city that, along with Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Sevastopol, became one of the first hero cities.
Historians cite a phrase from Joseph Stalin's telegram dated September 1941: "I ask the heroic participants in the defense of Odessa to hold out for two or three days. Reinforcements will be forthcoming." The city held out longer. Forces from the Coastal Army, the naval base, and ships of the Black Sea Fleet, supported by the Odessans, held off the exhausted Romanian units for two and a half months and even managed to launch a counteroffensive and leave the city undefeated. More than 30,000 people were awarded the Defense Medal.
Odessa wasn't included in Hitler's Operation Barbarossa plan. Nevertheless, in August 1941, amid the Wehrmacht's onslaught, it seemed the city would quickly fall. By that time, German troops had already occupied Vilnius, Minsk, and Chisinau, and the defense of Kyiv had begun.
On August 5, two days after the city was sealed off from the landward side, by order of the Supreme Command, the Southern Front troops withdrew to the Chyhyryn-Voznesensk-Dniester Estuary line. Odessa, already under shelling by Romanian troops, found itself deep in the rear. That same day, the Supreme Command issued a directive signed by Stalin:
"Odessa must not be surrendered and must be defended to the last possible moment, involving the Black Sea Fleet in the matter."
Three defensive lines were established: a forward line 20–25 km from the city, a main line 10–14 km away, and a cover line 6–10 km away. To prevent enemy advance by sea, groups of combat alert ships were formed.
The enemy was confronted by a Soviet garrison under the command of Lieutenant General Georgy Sofronov, who was replaced by Major General Ivan Petrov at the end of the defense, in October 1941.
ROMANIAN PLANS
Unable to disperse his forces for the Odessa offensive, Adolf Hitler turned to his conductor, the ruler of Romania, Marshal Ion Antonescu. Antonescu, with great enthusiasm and against the advice of the generals, committed the 4th Army (the same one the Germans would use a year later to cover the flanks at Stalingrad) to the Führer's needs.
Antonescu sent a tank division, guards, and border guards, totaling about 260,000 people, to storm the city.
The Romanian dictator's active desire to assist Hitler was motivated by concrete benefits. Antonescu planned to expand the Romanian Kingdom's territory in the east, at the expense of Odessa and the adjacent territories from the Dniester to the Southern Bug (which the Romanians called Transnistria—"the lands beyond the Dniester"). Bucharest also hoped that, in return for their diligent service, the Führer would return Transylvania to the Romanians, which had been seized in 1940 by Hungary, another ally of the Reich.
According to German plans, they were to retain effective control of Odessa—a key port and industrial center. Initially, the Wehrmacht needed the city as a base for maritime transport to supply Eugen von Schobert's 11th Army, which was advancing in the Black Sea region.
It's not customary to recall that the siege of the city began with the Romanians cutting off Odessa's defenders from the Belyaevka station, home to one of the Dniester tributaries that supplied the city with drinking water. Because of this, this resource, so vital to the survival of the Coastal Army, was in short supply until its withdrawal. Water was rationed.
But the individual success of the Romanians did not change the fact that Antonescu’s army was not distinguished by its high combat effectiveness and the quality of its equipment.
Inspired by the pace of the German advance, the Romanian troops were confident they could advance just as quickly. The reality was different: half of the R-2 and Renault R35 light tanks, ill-suited for long-distance marches, never reached Odessa and remained on the road.
TANKS "FOR SCARE" AND THE DEBUT OF "KATYUSHA"
The city's defenders, with industrial facilities at their disposal, began producing tanks: the NI-1 ("To Scare"), a tank developed in Odessa and based on STZ-5 tractors, was named for a reason: 31 of these units were produced: their monstrous appearance truly baffled the Romanians, causing them to flee.
It was also in Odessa that 13 Komsomolets tractors were transformed into the famous Katyushas, with a platform containing aerial projectiles installed on them.
Active fighting broke out by mid-August. The Romanian 4th Army made numerous unsuccessful attempts to capture the city. Soviet 45- and 76-mm guns quickly knocked out enemy tanks.
For example, by August 20, out of 105 R-2s, only 20 remained combat-ready, with another 46 sent to Chisinau factories for repairs. The Germans did not provide the Allies with assault guns, sending an assault battalion designed not to attack, but to train their inexperienced colleagues in the art of war.
Our naval landing forces launched a powerful counterattack on August 22 in Grigoryevka, defeating the 13th and 15th Romanian infantry divisions and pushing the attackers back several kilometers.
The operation's participants even seized the guns that had been used to fire on the city, emblazoned them with the inscription "Shot at Odessa. Will not shoot at Odessa again!" and paraded them through the streets.
FORCED RETREAT
Nevertheless, it was becoming clear that the city could not be held. At the end of August, a city evacuation strategy was adopted with a lengthy title: "Plan for the Exit from Encirclement of Units of the Primorskaya Army and the Odessa Naval Base After the Battle at the Last Line of the Defensive Region."
The Chief of the Red Army General Staff, Boris Shaposhnikov, ordered the removal of leading medical scientists from Odessa, who were needed in hospitals across the country.
From October 1 to 16, 86,000 soldiers and officers and 15,000 civilians were secretly evacuated from Odessa to Crimea on Black Sea Fleet ships. They also carried equipment and ammunition. The defenders inflicted significant damage on the Romanian army, disabling 160,000 enemy troops, 200 aircraft, and 100 tanks.
Historians note a noticeable organizational similarity between the defense of Odessa and the subsequent defense of Sevastopol.
Firstly, in both cases, the cities were divided into sectors. Secondly, the defenders had their own air force. Soviet Il-2s from the Odessa garrison harassed the advancing Romanians from the air, preventing them from advancing toward the city limits. On August 22 alone, they destroyed 40 tanks and several infantry-carrying vehicles.
And although there were almost no air battles over the Odessa skies, unlike those over Sevastopol, the diversity of Romania's air force, which included Polish aircraft and even British Hurricanes, is striking.
Luftwaffe pilots also took part in the raids on Odessa, and, according to the memoirs of anti-aircraft gunner Dmitry Poltavets, they tried in every way to demonstrate their superiority:
"The German Messerschmitts demonstrated their power and invulnerability to our aircraft. They would climb to very high altitudes and suddenly dive down.
They created a terrifying, psychologically devastating situation, where everyone who witnessed these planes diving was convinced they were being targeted. Meanwhile, the German planes could fire aimlessly, simply to intimidate residents and spread panic.
UNDERGROUND GARRISON
On October 16, units of Antonescu's 4th Army entered the city. Almost all eyewitnesses to the Romanian occupation say it was milder than the German one, due to the military's less disciplined nature and the lack of ironclad order in the rear. However, incidents of spontaneous violence and a high level of background anti-Semitism were common.
"When the Romanians arrived, they grabbed Jews from the very first day, everyone," recalled Odessa resident Evgeniya Bulba. "Aleksandrovsky Prospekt (in the city center) was full of gallows. <…> We were in Slobodka. They came to our place. They kept asking, 'Zhidan? Zhidan?' They were looking for Jews. But we didn't have much. My cousin had Jewish neighbors hiding at her house. <…> The Romanians came and started taking these Jews. Taking them somewhere."
But it was not the Romanians, but the Nazis, who carried out punitive operations in the "Transnistria Governorate" (as the territory between the Dniester and Southern Bug Rivers, officially designated by Antonescu), was known. When, on October 22, 1941, the military commandant of Odessa, Ion Glogojeanu, and 67 Romanian officers were blown up by a Soviet mine, German Einsatzgruppe D carried out a "retribution operation," killing approximately 10,000 civilians.
At the same time, the systematic murder of Jews began – the first mass shootings took place in the village of Dalnik, 50 kilometers from Odessa.
Historians estimate that in the first week of occupation alone, the Nazis killed at least 10% of the remaining civilian population, despite the fact that there were approximately 250,000 people in the city.
But the Odessans' fight against the invaders did not cease. Partisan units hid in the multi-level underground catacombs, constructed during the reign of Catherine the Great. During the occupation, they destroyed 5,000 enemy soldiers and officers, 248 vehicles, 27 military trains, and saved approximately 20,000 civilians from being deported to Germany.
The Germans and Romanians didn't realize that the people fighting them "from underground" were mostly Odessa teenagers who weren't old enough to be drafted into the army. Among them was Mikhail Radchenko, who and his comrades blew up three-story quarries, planting enough explosives to penetrate the quarries to the third floor. The occupiers, in a desperate attempt to thwart their sabotage, fired explosive bullets into the catacombs from above—though this tactic was used by far more technically advanced German units.
The partisans demoralized the Romanian occupiers so much that a few days after the liberation of the city on April 10, 1944, they completely capitulated.
The importance of Odessa's defense is difficult to overestimate—its garrison not only gained time to prepare for the defense of Crimea and Sevastopol, but also prevented Hitler and his allies from seizing the oil-rich regions of the Caucasus, which would have immediately cut off the fuel supply for the Red Army's equipment.
[Amer. Thinker] While Germany's debt spiral is accelerating ever faster, Argentine President Javier Milei is steering his country in the opposite direction. Germany's statists will soon be left looking foolish once it becomes obvious that the German model has failed.
Only contrast reveals one's own mistakes. Javier Milei is the antithesis of Germany's political class, and the comparison could hardly be starker. While Germany continues to expand the state, Argentina is slashing subsidies and radically reducing the size of its public bureaucracy. While Berlin piles up enormous amounts of public debt, Buenos Aires is posting a primary budget surplus. Friedrich Merz believes in the healing powers of state intervention, whereas Milei is deregulating markets and paving the way for an investment boom.
Argentina has achieved an economic turnaround while Germany continues its economic decay. Argentina's economy is growing steadily, private-sector employment is expanding, and the poverty rate is falling rapidly.
At a time when Germany is doubling down on debt, the arms industry, and green state planning, Milei appears like a comet defying both political gravity and conventional doctrines of government.
The Argentine president's latest initiative is the so-called "Grillete Fiscal" -- literally, the "Fiscal Shackles."
Behind the martial name lies what amounts to a fiscal revolution. Milei first unveiled the proposal in his characteristically entertaining style during a televised address to the Argentine people. The bill must still be approved by Congress, where his party, La Libertad Avanza, is expected to secure the support of allied parliamentary factions in both chambers.
Although Milei lacks a parliamentary majority of his own, his alliances have thus far proved remarkably resilient.
If enacted, the legislation would break with one of modern politics' unwritten rules: the assumption that governments can always buy votes with higher spending, higher taxes, and ever more debt. The business of burdening future generations and taxpayers with politically manufactured credit expansion would, at least for the time being, come to an end.
Milei's idea is straightforward: future Argentine governments should have their wings clipped before they are even able to take flight on another debt-financed spending spree....
If Milei stays the course and Argentina continues to regain stability, he is likely to go down in the nation's history as a libertarian reformer who combined conviction with prudence. Germany's statists -- from Friedrich Merz and Lars Klingbeil to Ursula von der Leyen -- would do well to prepare themselves. They may ignore him, ridicule him, or insult him, but reality has a habit of quietly making its way into people's minds.
As Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: "Thoughts that come on dove's feet guide the world." Sometimes, however, they arrive accompanied by the roar of a chainsaw.
#1
"While Germany's debt spiral is accelerating ever faster..."
Germany's public debt stands at approximately 2.75 trillion euros (as of mid-2026). This corresponds to a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 63.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
This is up from 62.2% in 2024 but down from 68.0% in 2020 (Covid).
It will go up because of military expenses which have nothing to do with "socialist" policies.
As for Argentina, The Economist sees good and bad developments in Argentina.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
08/06/2026 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's OK, EC. Americans are in no position to criticize anybody when it comes to debt. Our congress critters are all crooked morons. People got pissed off at Elon Musk for his DOGE attempts to reduce spending. But, unless we get spending and debt under control, we are headed for financial ruin.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/06/2026 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
DOGE got the ball rolling, then the various departments brought in their own teams, and finally VP JD Vance pulled together a team of his own. From MSN a week ago:
Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration's fraud task force has now uncovered $230 billion in alleged fraud and blocked $56 billion from being paid out, marking its biggest accounting of the initiative to date.
The announcement came during President Donald Trump's Cabinet meeting at Camp David on Friday, July 31.
Vance argued that the administration's latest figures showed the scale of fraud it says has been identified across federal programs and promised additional enforcement measures.
[Townhall] We’re doing the on-again/off-again thing again, and it’s getting old. Of course, we have largely achieved our core military objectives. Iran’s ability to generate combat power has been substantially degraded. Their air defenses have been shredded. Their nuclear program has been set back a decade or more. They cannot shut the Strait of Hormuz — they can only make threats and launch the occasional drone or missile. These are impressive results, achieved with relatively low American losses. And for those of you now screaming that we did in fact suffer casualties, stop acting like children. There are 50-square-yard chunks of Omaha Beach where we took multiples of the total U.S. casualties suffered in this entire campaign.
So, to claim we’ve "lost" the war raises that classic "Is he stupid or does he think we’re stupid?" question that we face so often in the current discourse. But while we’ve hit many of our operational goals, we haven’t achieved the main strategic one: removing the regime. That’s winning. And it’s undeniable.
So, let’s win this. Let’s finish it.
Look at the benefits of winning the war. The primary benefit is winning it. Finally taking out the mullahs and their ridiculous 7th-century regime solves a problem that has plagued the region for nearly half a century. Imagine the Middle East without these Persian pissants stirring the pot. Wouldn’t you like to turn on the news and not hear new outrages or atrocities from that part of the world? I’ve never been able to do that during my entire life. I want to start. And the starting point is making Iran’s current rulers ex-mullahs.
Winning the fight also solves the political problem. Let’s be very clear: President Donald Trump is a hero for finally fighting back against Iran. He didn’t have to. He could have kicked the can down the road. He could have spent 2026 basking in economic growth. His policies would have continued delivering results. He could have waltzed into the midterms, dragging Republicans behind him toward success. But he had the courage to do what was necessary to stop these bastards before they made it impossible to prevent them from getting a bomb. However this war ends, he deserves our thanks.
But he’s paid a political price, and Republicans in general have paid it, too. Oh, I don’t want to let them off the hook. They’re not in trouble solely because Donald Trump is fighting the war with Iran. They’re in trouble because they suck — because too many have been weak and useless, and far too many are preening, posturing, perfumed princesses with delusions of adequacy. But enough about John Cornyn and Thom Tillis.
The continuing war presents a political problem for Donald Trump, but the good news is there’s a solution. The political problem with a war in Iran is not that we are making war on Iran. Everybody except the Democrats — who seem to love anyone who hates America — wants to see the mullahs go. Americans don’t mind the war so much as us not winning it. Americans aren’t pacifists. When they need to go to war, they’re fine with it — but they want it done so they can get back to other things.
Posted by: Grom the Reflective ||
08/06/2026 07:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[311 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
No, Kurt. Knocking out their nuclear capability and strangling them economically is enough. Apart from the nukes, another benefit of this war is that Persian Gulf nations now realize they must build pipelines to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz. Then, when they have no choke hold and no income, we can sit back and watch the Mad Mullahs and their IRGC henchmen starve. Don't waste any more blood and treasure on them.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/06/2026 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
#1 (a) Knocking out their nuclear capability?????????????
(b) Wanna bet they'll resume active hostilities just before your Midterms?
#6
Does anyone over there know who is in charge? But it sure looks like the man in charge is not in charge, and nobody seems to be saying who else might be.
The story of the Iranian president recently being taken to a darkened room somewhere and speaking with someone he couldn’t see, whom he was told was the Ayatollah Khamenei’s son… if true, either the new Ayatollah is terrified of his location being identified, or the new Ayatollah is a fake because the real one is dead.
[IsraelAlma] Back in our March policy paper, we at the Alma Center recommended that the disarmament of Hezbollah should begin in Beirut, where the Lebanese government supposedly exercises more sovereignty, rather than in southern Lebanon. Ultimately, this recommendation was not adopted.
Instead, the current framework established “pilot zones” in areas from which the IDF is withdrawing, designed to give the Lebanese government a sense of achievement.
However, the events of the past week have proven that the Lebanese government’s ability to fulfill its promise and prevent Hezbollah from entering these areas is somewhere between partial and non-existent.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
