165 Pro-Russian Accounts List Reignites Censorship Debate

A list of 165 pro-Russian accounts reignites the ghost of lists

Someone decides to stop arguing and opts for the ignore button. Not with one person: with 165. The list of accounts flagged as pro-Russian stems from the weariness of seeing justifications for the invasion of Ukraine, aiming to silence the noise. It has lit another fuse. The trigger is concrete: the feeling that a segment of the audience repeats the Kremlin's narrative without cost.

It is not an isolated episode. It is the latest turn of the screw in a conflict that carries its own domestic sub-war: how to combat foreign discourse without becoming what one criticizes.

What is debated when an exclusion list is discussed

Gathering 165 names is not a casual comment; it is a mechanism. The cheapest form of digital discussion is executing it without citing, refuting, or giving voice. This is defended by those who argue that propaganda dies from indifference, not arguments. The list, moreover, is organized like a census: one is added to whom one disagrees with, and they are invited to leave. Behind this gesture lies something old.

The backlash was not long in coming. One current defends the opposite: that the time to tie the noose has passed and it is now time to ridicule them. The idea is that many of these positions are only expressed because they are perceived as majority, and that humiliating them serves a social function. Two opposite tactics, silence and mockery, for the same adversary.

The uncomfortable parallel with Civil War lists

The most repeated blow against the initiative came from its own flank. Naming names and distributing them recalls too much what was done in Spain in 1936. The accusation —here are the cheka people making lists again— did not come from those named, but from those who declare themselves neutral. It is the classic problem of the tool: you use it to defend freedom and end up building a file.

There is a half-possible defense. No such list forces anything: it only orders whom not to read. The distinction blurs when the list grows, when it mixes Kremlin defenders with critics of NATO plain and simple, and when the real criterion is not supporting Moscow, but disagreeing with Washington. Several of those included noted this: the list puts anti-Pilingui and anti-NATO in the same bag.

Geopolitics slipping in through the window

Beneath the squabbling lies a serious issue, which must not be lost sight of. The most repeated argument is not sympathy for Moscow, but distrust of the Western bloc. The thesis goes like this: Russia should have been a natural ally of Western Europe, the United States does not want it, and the way to prevent it is to tense Ukraine; the great loser of the maneuver is the continent itself, which shoots itself in the foot by playing the other's game.

From there comes the bill to the domestic kitchen: mortgage, gas, electricity, unemployment, and month-end. Those who do not make it, they argue, will remember the European design and its managers long after forgetting geography. It is the economic framework that turns a military discussion into a pocket discussion.

How much support does Pilingui have left on the map?

A count made its way through the fray. In the UN vote against Russia, 141 countries voted in favor and 35 abstained, with Venezuela out of the count. This leaves unconditional support reduced to a handful: Belarus, Eritrea, Syria, and North Korea. In parallel, another data point pointed to European institutional unanimity: forces far apart agreed to applaud the Ukrainian ambassador.

This contrast —many countries against four—is what some use to measure the real temperature of the conflict, above the noise of digital trenches.

The Ukrainian decree allowing foreigners to enlist

Amid the cross-reproaches about who truly defends the cause, someone brought out the fine print. A Ukrainian presidential decree, No. 248 of June 10, 2016, regulates the military service of foreigners and stateless persons: it allows voluntary incorporation into the Armed Forces of Ukraine and its territorial defense forces. The gesture had a clear target: those who encourage fighting so much, let them enlist.

And, as usually happens, the requirement of foreign courage always clashes with one's own comfort. Few took the step.

One piece of data remains that does not quite fit. Lists are made to expel from conversation, but lists do not expel anyone: they multiply the echo. Each added name turns a stranger into a side, and those who ignored the dispute into spectators. The tool of silence is, measured in traffic, an amplification machine. Ignoring, it turns out, is exactly what almost no one did.