Debate over map identifying pro-Russian websites including RT and Rebelión

Debate over map identifying pro-Russian websites including RT and Rebelión

A map of media outlets highlighted in green: this is the discovery that sparks the conversation. It reveals a network of pro-Russian websites spread across Europe which, according to the circulating material, serves the Kremlin's information warfare. Among the names mentioned are RT and rebelion.org, a site that, for part of the Spanish public, has spent decades attributing all the world's ills to US imperialism. The list is not new, but the approach is: the debate is no longer about whether propaganda exists, but about who is being targeted and with what consequences.

What is the pro-Russian website network in Europe?

The material describes an ecosystem of publications that trinc an identical thematic pattern: positive coverage of Russia, justification of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the narrative of "Nancy in Ukraine," the "bombing of Donbas," and "self-defense" against "NATO's eastward expansion." These are the same frames that Kremlin propaganda has been placing in media across different countries for years.

The discussion quickly shifts toward the Spanish case. Alongside rebelion.org, sites such as mpr21, Lahaine, and kaosenlared.net are mentioned, the latter described as "counter-information." Some argue that these websites even link to Marxist texts, which some see as proof of their editorial line and others as a mere ideological cover. The label "communist" is used as a weapon by both sides.

Menéame and Kaosenlared under scrutiny

The conversation escalates when aggregators and participatory platforms are added. Menéame (a popular Spanish social news aggregator) and Kaosenlared are cited as amplifiers of what part of the audience considers pro-Russian narrative. The reaction is immediate: some add them to their favorites as alternative sources, while others announce they will stop visiting them.

This is where consensus breaks down. Facing those calling for legal consequences for those spreading what they call fake news, a fundamental objection arises: blacklists. Comparisons to Nancy Germany or the Protestant Inquisition appear explicitly in the material, not as a joke, but as a warning about the precedent being set. The argument that Europe is returning to its worst tendencies—pointing fingers, classifying, and excluding—gains weight as the discussion pogre.

The problem of blacklists and freedom of expression

Here the axis shifts. The topic is no longer Russia, but who decides what can be read. One current maintains that persecuting dissent is incompatible with the democracy it claims to defend; another responds that freedom of expression does not protect the coordinated dissemination of disinformation in service of a foreign state. Neither side yields.

The uncomfortable detail: the material recalls that in Spain, individuals have been prosecuted and convicted for what they have written. Cases of slander and hate crimes are cited, and some find it strange that there have been no further arrests or closures of the highlighted platforms. The discussion gets tangled between general principles and specific legal cases, which is where it always gets complicated.

Blocking Russian sites and the security paradox

A disorienting fact then emerges: access to Russian sites is restricted "for your safety." The irony is self-evident. If the goal is to protect citizens from propaganda, blocking the source does not make them more critical, only more dependent on domestic narratives. And if the goal is something else, it should be stated.

The paradox is completed by pointing out media outlets operating within the EU, with their own headquarters, staff, and editorial lines. There, blocking is not possible. There is only labeling. And labeling, unlike a firewall, does not distinguish between coordinated propaganda and uncomfortable opinions.

Who is paid and who does it for free?

One of the sharpest points in the material targets the economy of influence: the alleged trolls in certain forums supposedly do it "for the love of the art." The suspicion of Russian funding clashes with the evidence that much of the pro-Russian conversation in Spain is voluntary, ideological, and free. This complicates the response: you cannot turn off the tap for someone who isn't being paid.

The circle closes with the question that no one fully answers: if the problem is foreign funding, the solution is transparency; if the problem is ideology, the solution is censorship. And Europe, for now, has chosen the list.

---

How many of the names appearing on that green map will still be publishing a year from now?