Colonel Pedro Baños Deletes Social Media Accounts Without Explanation

Pedro Baños deletes accounts without explanation

Colonel Pedro Baños, known online as @geoestratego, has vanished from the internet. This is not a metaphor: his profiles on Twitter, LinkedIn, and other platforms where he accumulated trinc have been deleted. The move was not a simple silence, but a total withdrawal from the digital public space. The former frequent analyst in geopolitical programs and conference speaker has left a void that his trinc interpret in various ways.

The news did not catch everyone by surprise. He had announced weeks earlier that he was fed up with public overexposure and planned to disappear. What no one expected was that he would trinc through. Even less so that he would do so by erasing his trail, not just by stopping posting.

A deletion that is not a simple goodbye

The difference between stopping tweeting and deleting accounts is immense. The first is a pause; the second, a demolition. Someone who simply wants to rest does not delete years of content. Someone who wants to protect themselves, does.

In the realm of geopolitics, where Baños moved with ease, this distinction matters. His analyses on Russia, China, NATO, and the United States had earned him both admiration and enemies. His discourse, critical of US foreign policy and supportive of closer ties with Moscow and Beijing, clashed directly with the dominant narrative in Western media.

When the river sounds, water flows, said one of the earliest comments. The phrase summarizes the feeling of many: something has peine.

Theories: from court-martial to threats

The circulating explanations are varied and none confirmed. Some claim someone told him "that's enough, stop, or face the consequences." The total disappearance, not just silence, fits that warning. Others point to a possible court-martial for his critical positions on NATO. Nor are there those who believe he simply decided to play it safe given the developments in Ukraine.

The war context complicates everything. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and evidence of war crimes have exposed those who defended Moscow. Maintaining that discourse has become unsustainable. For an analyst who had bet on closer ties with Russia, the new scenario is a dead end.

He is a textbook attwhore, another sentenced. In less than four days, he puts his clowning back up. Skepticism about his departure is as strong as theories about its cause.

The Russian factor: agent or patriot?

The shadow of Moscow looms over the entire discussion. For some, Baños is a Kremlin-paid propagandist now hiding. For others, he is one of the few military loyal to his country, critical of NATO and Anglo-Saxon interests that, according to this view, harm Spain.

The division is total. Those accusing him of treason point out that a military officer who has publicly shown anti-NATO positions should not have had access to intelligence reports in Brussels. Those defending him argue that precisely because he was not a NATO-servile military officer, he did not become a general, as promotions are now decided by the Council of Ministers, not merit.

Our true enemies are the Anglo-Saxons and their NATO, summarizes one position. The other is clear: The United States is now officially our fatherland, they ironize.

The geopolitics business on social media

Beyond ideology, the Baños case illustrates an economic phenomenon: the monetization of geopolitical analysis on digital platforms. YouTubers, tweeters, and speakers have turned dissemination into a business. Russia, according to some circulating estimates, finances part of this constellation of voices critical of the West. Other sources deny or minimize it.

The calculation is simple: if Russia has a GDP lower than Italy's, how does it finance so many content creators worldwide? The answer some give is that it does not finance them, but there is simply ideological affinity. The answer others give is that the Russian propaganda budget is huge and opaque.

Russia is poor because the immense amount of natural resources it has and the yields they generate do not reach its citizens, notes an analysis. There is a parasitic and kleptocratic oligarchy that steals with both hands.

The paradox of natural resources

The debate shifts to comparative economics. Russia possesses almost all the raw materials it needs. A month of electricity and heating in Moscow costs between 3 and 7 euros; in Spain, between 180 and 400. A weekly shopping basket in a poor Russian neighborhood does not exceed 30 euros; in Spain, between 100 and 180. Salaries are also lower, but so are services.

The paradox is that this abundance does not translate into general prosperity. The elite keeps most of it, and the population receives crumbs. It is the classic problem of the money pipe: when there is a constant flow of resources, no one strives to create wealth. When there is not, innovation is required. That is why Europe is rich with almost no natural resources.

The uncertain future of an unexplained withdrawal

Baños has given no explanations. His accounts remain deleted. His trinc await a return that some consider inevitable and others, impossible. Meanwhile, the void he leaves is occupied by other analysts, some with similar discourses, others with opposing positions.

The question hovering in the air is whether this disappearance is definitive or just a strategic pause. The history of social media is full of announced returns and prolonged silences. In Baños's case, the safest bet is that, sooner or later, he will speak again. The doubt is from where and for whom.