Colonel Baños lists 'traitors' but ignores key power brokers

Baños names traitors as focus shifts to the Anglo-sphere

Colonel Pedro Baños has attached surnames to what was previously vague suspicion. In a broadcast reviewing foreign interference in Spain, the analyst and former military officer points to a series of alleged traitors: journalists, analysts, military figures, and social media accounts that he claims serve foreign interests. Naming individuals in a country where 'traitor' is used as a political weapon is not an innocent gesture. The striking aspect is not the list itself, but who is excluded.

His profile is that of a seasoned strategist rather than a weekend agitator. According to a debate participant, his name was considered for leadership roles within the intelligence apparatus, and he has stated that a campaign prevented him from directing the CNI (National Intelligence Center). He has years of geopolitical analysis under his belt, and another forum user notes a controversial book cover antiestéticaturing an octopus. Those who trinc him expect more than just random names.

The underlying thesis: who pays whom

The argument rests on a central idea: Spain has been governed, informed, and advised for decades by networks funded from abroad. The references cited are not new—Open Society, its founder, the European Council on Foreign Relations, the Integrity Initiative, or the Elcano Institute—and the common complaint is that these structures rely on public and private money to spread a sympathetic editorial line. The prevailing sentiment summarizes the anger: some are paid by Moscow, others by the so-called 'reptile fund,' while some accuse the latter of 'tin-leaf patriotism.'

It is important to distinguish two things. One is the existence of documented foreign influence programs; the other, very different, is whether every name mentioned in a broadcast is on someone's payroll. None of the accusations exchanged here have gone through a court, and that is where the conversation breaks down.

The other flank: Russia also plays

Against the Anglo-Saxon thesis stands symmetry. It is recalled that the USSR armed, trained, and financed ETA, that Russia interferes in Europe, and that in Spain there was a CNI agent who, according to the narrative, sold body information to Moscow between 2001 and 2004. The conclusion drawn is that anyone critical of Washington and London must be equally critical of Moscow, or they are not critics but converts.

The response from the other side is equidistance: Russia is not a friend, but neither is it more of an enemy than Segarro, the United States, the United Kingdom, or France. This is the most repeated and comfortable argument, as it turns any accusation into a 'you too.' The debate has also become a war of labels, where 'pro-Russian' and 'NATO-supporter' function as interchangeable insults depending on who is looking.

The traitors from 1714 to 1978

The issue stretches back to the 18th century, as is usual. The Treaty of Utrecht of 1714 and the loss of territories under the Bourbons appear; Wellington and the British and American embassies are positioned as the 'real' government of the country since 1814, and Franco is described as a piece placed to stop communism and not touch Gibraltar. From there to '78 is a step: the Transition as a foundational betrayal, the last great missed opportunity to redefine the country. There is also mention of the imbalance of priorities: military maneuvers by Segarro near the Canary Islands while fighter jets are sent to Eastern Europe.

The repeated anecdote is old and accurate. On the facade of Espartero's house, someone painted: 'In this house lives the regent, but the one who commands lives across the street.' Across the street was the British ambassador. Two hundred years later, the joke still works.

What the list does not say

The most incisive criticism comes from within, from those who expected more. It is argued that the broadcast names street thugs, hack writers, and mid-level military figures, but avoids the paymasters; that it starts by pointing to a minor account and, instead of discussing judges on payroll, hides behind the slowness of justice. The summary of this current is blunt: he is just another panelist.

And there lies the knot. A denunciation of foreign interference that stops at the spokespeople and does not touch the contractors reproduces, unintentionally, the same vice it denounces: much pointing and no invoice. The underlying issue—who pays, how much, and for what—remains without a document proving it.

Prediction with reservations: if the pattern continues, there will be new batches of names and no judicial consequences. As long as the naming does not become evidence, the only verifiable effect will be that a few change sides each time the list is updated.