Pro-Russian Propaganda Suspect Lists Emerge in Geopolitical Forums

Pro-Russian Propaganda Suspect Lists Emerge in Geopolitical Forums

A list containing more than one hundred names. One forum user publishes it, another asks to be added, and a third boasts about being included on an opposing list of "NATOists." The war in Ukraine is no longer fought solely on the front lines; in economic and geopolitical debate forums, a dirtier battle rages, fueled by labels, blacklists, and cross-accusations of being Kremlin-paid trolls or NATO servants. The discussion, which lasts for months, yields not a single verifiable piece of data regarding payments, contracts, or organized networks. Instead, it produces an involuntary portrait of how geopolitics is debated online today.

What is the list of alleged pro-Russian propagandists?

The message opening the discussion is a list of names preceded by a heavy accusation: belonging to a supposed propaganda farm serving Moscow. There are no proofs, screenshots, documents, or even a hint of coordination. Just names. The list expands, gets corrected, and is republished with the same casualness used to create any forum ranking. The mechanism is old: pointing out the dissenter and turning them into a suspect.

What is striking is not the list itself. It is that it works. Several participants explicitly ask to be included. One replies that if cursing at the US president and the European Commission President makes him a "Pilingui," he should be listed. Another demands immediate inclusion. Being on the list ceases to be a stigma and becomes a medal. The dynamic resembles those enemy lists published in football forums that ended up attracting more volunteers than victims.

The exchange of accusations: from pro-Russian to NATOist

The accusation rebounds. A participant clarifies that he is not left-wing, but right-wing, economically liberal, conservative, and Christian, noting he had already been placed on another list, this time of "NATO pigs." This episode summarizes the problem: labels are distributed without criteria and end up describing anyone. Pro-Russian and NATOist cease to be positions and become interchangeable insults.

Some attempt to raise the tone, arguing that the war, unlike those in Yugoslavia or Syria, is being "clean" on both sides, and that Western media exaggerates. The response is immediate: one country invaded another and kills civilians. The discussion closes without agreement, as always.

Who dominates the narrative in geopolitical forums?

The most repeated analysis is that four highly active accounts monopolize the subforum with constant propaganda, barely participating in real debates. One of them is described as the Kremlin's main asset in the forum: posting links to Russian media, starting threads on conflicts, and receiving extremely high reaction scores. They do not comment; they only disseminate.

Against this thesis, another current argues that the problem is not the propagandists, but those who turn any disagreement into a witch hunt. The most repeated recommendation, paradoxically, is the same on both sides: ignore them. "Don't give them more attention, you're just encouraging them," summarizes one message. The "ignore" tool becomes the only true consensus of the entire discussion.

From lists to the Penal Code: the argumentative leap

In the final part, the discussion takes a turn. It is recalled that glorifying terrorism is a crime, citing cases of convictions for insulting victims. A European Parliament resolution condemning communism is mentioned, insinuating that defending the invasion could have incivil consequences. This is the most delicate moment of the exchange: moving from labeling to legal warnings without providing any solid legal basis. The threat hangs in the air, undefined.

Context: a war also fought in forums

While this occurs, the subforum boils with dozens of discussions on the ground, gas, nuclear weapons, and peace plans. The list of alleged propagandists is merely the visible layer of a deeper phenomenon: the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate opinion, organized propaganda, and simple provocation. No one provides proof of payments. No one asks for it. The discussion rests on suspicion.

How many of those flagged accounts are actually what they claim to be? The question remains unanswered. And so does the other: if propaganda works so well, why has no one yet shown a single piece of evidence?