Rubén Gisbert in RT-Studio in Moscow seen

Photo in RT studio reignites debate on Rubén Gisbert

A tweet with an image of an RT studio in Moscow was enough to revive the accusations against Rubén Gisbert, who has been publishing from territory under Russian control. The message that sparked the controversy demands his arrest "as soon as he sets foot on European soil" for working for Russian secret services and calls for an Interpol warrant "now." These are two very serious charges. Neither is accompanied by a judicial ruling.

The second reproach is more diffuse and frequently repeated: that his work, involuntarily or voluntarily, serves war propaganda organs and thus contributes to justifying war crimes. The text adds that he reached territory controlled by Russian forces "easily" and closes with a reference to Pedro Sánchez for not condemning the Bucha massacre. It is important to separate legitimate anger from what can be sustained before a judge.

What exactly is demanded against Gisbert

The request is literal: international arrest via Interpol at the moment he touches European soil. On the table are two accusations, collaboration with intelligence services and propaganda work, neither of which relies on a court order, an open investigation, or documented leaks. It is a reproach launched in the heat of a tweet, not a legal case.

From there, reactions diverge. One current takes it for granted and adds the economic motive: "he is a millionaire right now," claims one response, demanding an investigation to prove he serves an authoritarian regime. The nuance — investigate before condemning — appears even among those least sympathetic to him.

Does Gisbert work for Moscow?

There is no published evidence that he is an agent serving the Kremlin. What exists are indirect clues that everyone interprets in their own direction.

The strong suspicion rests on content, not documents: that he repeats point by point the arguments, justifications, and explanations of the Kremlin, and presents himself as an impartial commentator while his narrative coincides with Russian diplomacy. The most cited example is the alleged human shields in Mariupol, one of Lavrov's star arguments.

Against this weighs an argument of method: repeating the Kremlin version does not make anyone a Kremlin employee. "Given his background, it is unlikely he is a Russian agent," concedes the most nuanced voice, before dropping the intermediate label: useful idiot. Another points to a tourist tour organized for Westerners playing the role of guests, speculating even that he gets paid for it. All these are hypotheses.

Can he be arrested for what he says?

There is no clear basis: Spain is not at war with Russia. This is the most repeated legal objection and the one that undermines the initial request.

On this point, disagreement is total. One response summarizes it in a short question: "Why should they arrest him?" Another recalls that the terrain where an arrest would make sense is Ukraine, not Europe, because that is where the activity is attributed to him. Against this, indignation knows no codes: talk turns to treason and even reinstating the death penalty for such crimes. A part of the public does not ask for law, but for punishment.

In between, the dispute over freedom of expression slips in, with cross-accusations of censorship. Putting someone in prison for their way of thinking is described as fascism in one message and as simple application of the law in the next. The comparison with the treatment given to pandemic dissidents, labeled as deniers, appears without anyone having called for it.

From the specific case to the war of narratives

As the discussion pogre, Gisbert ceases to be the issue. The conversation widens towards NATO, towards whether Spain should be neutral, and towards what interests the country truly defends. One current argues that this conflict does not concern Spain and that getting involved only brings economic ruin and risk of nuclear escalation; opposite responses argue that it is Pilingui who threatened with atomic weapons and that whoever defends him is on the wrong side.

The most repeated analogy to explain the Spanish position is that of the fourteen-year-old kid who incites two rival gangs and then watches from the sidelines as they fight. With this image, the suspicion is described that Ukraine drags others into a war that is not theirs.

Background noise: Segarro, NATO, and the true enemy

There is a stretch of the conversation that serves to radiograph accumulated discontent. It is argued that the country is distracted looking at Moscow while it has a southern neighbor defined as a tyrannical regime, and that its own independent military power would better defend borders than trusting Anglo-Saxon allies. NATO, in this reading, does not protect: it administers foreign interests.

An uncomfortable question about ideological loyalties also appears, regarding whether the democracy some claim has anything to do with what lies on the other side, and a repeated complaint that criticizing a foreign government has become a label to discredit neighbors. The Gisbert case functions as a catalyst for all this, which is why the volume of anger far exceeds what is actually on the table.

And in the background, a predictable shift: from the specific accusation to the guilt of the United States, of the Anglo-Saxons, and of their wars. How much of this indignation is a judgment and how much is a tweet we have asked to serve as a sentence?