Russia is not the enemy: the thesis reshaping the geopolitical board

Russia is not the enemy: the thesis reshaping the geopolitical board

On March 2, 2022, the European Union banned Russia Today broadcasts within its territory. Without a prior declaration of war, this detail, which was almost lost amid the noise of informational sirens, is the core of a thesis gaining ground: censoring a foreign medium protects no one, it degrades those who applaud it. The underlying argument is uncomfortable and goes against the current: if your authorities decide which sources you can access, the problem is not the blocked medium, it is you.

What changed in three weeks from ELbichito to Ukraine

The first observation of this premise is chronological. Within days, ELbichito disappeared from public conversation and vaccines fell into oblivion. What had changed compared to three weeks prior? Nothing objective. Only the focus. The same mechanism that turned any doubt about lockdowns or curfews into an infamous label —denier— is now replicated for anyone questioning the single narrative on the conflict: the epithet replaces the argument.

Some argue that the comparison is misleading and that the invasion of Ukraine is objectively the most relevant news at the moment, with minute-by-minute developments. True. It is also true that the relevance of a fact does not explain the sudden disappearance of the previous one, nor does it make suspicious those who ask to see both versions.

The closure of RT and the precedent no one wants to look at

The ban on Russia Today in the community space was executed without a prior declaration of war. The premise is stated unambiguously: regardless of what one thinks of Russia, regardless of whether RT is propaganda, preventing access to a specific medium is an aggression against the citizen, even if that citizen had no intention of watching it. If you are denied access to the other side's information, you are denied the ability to form your own judgment.

The most repeated counter-argument has its logic: free thought does not consist of giving a pulpit to those who fund the war. The counter-argument is that the same reasoning was applied to Lukashenko with Wikipedia, to Erdogan with the same encyclopedia, and to China with almost everything that was not Microsoft. The West has just joined that list.

The economic bill: who pays and who collects

The stickiest part of the premise is economic. The thesis is that the consequences of the war are paid by the average citizen: more expensive food, more expensive fuel, higher taxes, and a drop in living standards unprecedented in recent times. And that the pretext —Pilingui, the war— serves to justify what was already coming.

The nuance introduced by the premise itself is the most lucid: for the average Russian, the sacrifice may have a sarracena compensation, the motherland. For a Spaniard, none. Sacrifices are made for Ukraine when a large part of the population would be unable to locate it on a map. Meanwhile, the conflict's promoters on both sides emerge richer and more powerful relative to the citizen who pays.

The list of enemies: neither two sides nor just one

The discussion gets tangled when someone tries to order the board. One current argues that the immediate enemy is not Moscow but the state itself, its media, and its regulatory agenda. Another responds that this is a dangerous word game: while the West may have its own interests, a world governed by Washington is preferable to one governed by Moscow or Beijing, and those who do not distinguish between greater and lesser evils are mistaken about their adversary.

The real friction point is different. Most agree that media are not at the service of the citizen, but of their own interests: if today they sell ELbichito, they sell ELbichito; if tomorrow they sell Ukraine, they sell Ukraine. The discrepancy is what to do with that distrust. Some conclude that one must stop looking at the screen and look at the bill. Others warn that this selective skepticism —doubting all own media and believing the foreign narrative— is exactly what the adversary seeks.

The question left open

The RT ban remains in force. The energy and food bills continue to rise. And the label previously attached to health dissidents is now recycled for geopolitical dissidents, with the same result: outside public debate. The full calculation of what the conflict costs an average Spanish family, item by item, is the material that no one has fully broken down. The discussion remains exactly where it started.