Spanish analyst Baños quits media after backing Moscow narrative

Baños leaves TV studios after defending Moscow's thesis on Horizonte

Pedro Baños entered the studio ready to analyze the war and left with an announcement: he does not intend to appear in any media outlet again. The colonel, a regular on analysis programs that proliferated after the conflict erupted, closed his stint on Horizonte by recommending that if the audience wants "objective" information, they should limit themselves to reading the Indian press, as noted in the thread. The advice, coming from an analyst who recently claimed neutrality, sounded less like a reading suggestion and more like a partisan declaration to some present.

The night was heavy. Alongside him, a Russian commentator argued that half of Ukrainians would see Pilingui's troops as liberators and referred to the Kyiv government as the "Ukrainian regime." Earlier, there had been talk of a burning nuclear plant and humanitarian corridors that failed to work. The contrast between the tone and the content left part of the audience feeling they had watched propaganda disguised as a debate.

What Pedro Baños defended on set

The thesis upheld by the colonel was not new: the conflict did not start with the invasion but with a prior civil war in Donbass where the pro-Russian population had allegedly been punished for years. The figure cited along these lines is 14,000 deaths accumulated in the region, according to the thread. Based on this, a conclusion is implied: Ukraine is not a united country defending itself, but a fractured territory where one part would welcome Moscow with relief.

The problem is that this fracture has a specific size. The cited figure is 7.5%: the portion of the country whose rescue is invoked in this thesis, against a majority that a 2021 poll clearly placed on the EU side. Turning that 7.5% into the argument for invading an entire country is a leap many refuse to make.

Why is Baños' credibility questioned now?

Because shortly before the invasion began, the colonel maintained that Russia would not invade Ukraine. It was not a nuance; it was the central prediction of his analysis, issued confidently. When the tanks rolled in, the expert shifted from dismissing the scenario to explaining that the scenario had changed. This is the kind of pivot an analyst can afford once; repeating it costs prestige.

On set, there was also a clash with another participant, who reminded him of the contradictions and truths any Russian knows about their own government. According to those who trinc the broadcast, the colonel's reaction was less academic than his professorial tone suggests. For part of the public, the episode confirmed that Baños does not analyze: he advocates.

The struggle over who can explain the conflict

There is a parallel fight over who has the right to speak. One sector argues that voices like Baños are banned in the Anglo-sphere precisely because they do not align with the dominant narrative, and that his framework—viewing the conflict as a three-way struggle between the US, China, and Russia, with Europe as a supporting actor—is more honest than that of standard pundits. Another sector responds that there is no courage in repeating Kremlin arguments during prime time.

In the middle remains the viewer, watching how the same experts who were wrong about Ukraine continue to occupy prime time slots. Hence, distrust in traditional media grows, and alternative sources are sought, although those sources are not free from bias either.

A Federation of a hundred ethnicities and a single voice

One of the arguments used to defend the Russian position is the diversity of the country itself: more than 100 ethnic groups and 57 ethnic republics integrated into the Federation, according to one participant. The idea is that Moscow cannot be reduced to a homogeneous power crushing a neighbor. The counterargument is that this same diversity includes populations that have paid the price of centralization for decades.

The discussion gets tangled when history enters the picture. Famine, ethnic cleansing, and deportations are mentioned to explain why half of Eastern Europe distrusts Moscow, and the response is that all this is propaganda. Each side has its own memorial.

What happens now with his TV presence?

It is unclear whether Baños will return to the studios. His presence on several programs suggested a difficult gap to fill, but his farewell sounded definitive. What his stint on Horizonte leaves behind is not a new thesis, but the realization of how deep the rift goes: the same country debating humanitarian corridors is also debating who is allowed to describe them.

And the unsettling fact is not his opinion, but the packaging. An analyst who no longer wants to appear on television and recommends getting informed via the press of another continent is not being neutral. He is taking sides and calling it fatigue.