The recent blocking of the Telegram channel of RIA Novosti, one of the main Russian state media outlets, has turned the spotlight on an increasingly central battleground: information. The European Union’s decision, extended to countries such as Italy, Germany and France, was motivated by the need to counter Russian disinformation in the context of the conflict in Ukraine. However, behind this choice lies a dilemma that questions the very foundations of Western democracies: censor to protect or leave room for dangerous narratives too?
RIA Novosti is not a simple media channel. Founded in 1941, it is an integral part of the state conglomerate Rossiya Segodnya and, together with tools such as RT and Sputnik, has been accused of being the Kremlin’s megaphone to spread narratives functional to Russian foreign policy. Its website, however, continues to function, raising questions about the effectiveness and consistency of an approach that affects some tools but not all. But is it right to block an entire platform to fight misinformation? And what does this decision tell us about the resilience of European democracies?
Telegram, born as an alternative to traditional social networks, has become a fertile ground for controversial content. If in Belarus and Iran it was a bastion of democratic protests, in Russia it became a privileged channel for state agencies. Founder Pavel Durov, always a promoter of freedom of expression, found himself at the center of controversy: on the one hand, the app was accused of hosting propaganda, child pornography and crime; on the other hand, it has been blocked in countries such as China and Iran due to its destabilizing role.
In May 2024, the EU had already banned Russian media such as Izvestija and Golos Evropy on all platforms, motivating the decision with accusations of “war propaganda”.. Today, the blocking of channels on Telegram represents a further step towards increasingly stringent control of digital storytelling. Yet, the fact that the official RIA Novosti website remains accessible highlights a selective approach that fuels doubts about the coherence of the measures adopted. “Censorship demonstrates the weakness of the West”said Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesman. Margarita Simonjan, editor-in-chief of RT, added: “Closing our channels means fearing the truth.” Russian propaganda, now refined, does not limit itself to spreading manipulated news, but constructs entire narrative frames to justify the aggression against Ukraine. RIA Novosti, for example, is not just a news agency, but a geopolitical tool.
However, distinguishing between propaganda and freedom of expression is not simple. Some have criticized the blockade, pointing out that a strong democracy is not afraid to confront critical voices. Others, however, argue that leaving space for distorted narratives is equivalent to endangering social cohesion. Censorship or protection? The blocking of RIA Novosti raises ethical and strategic questions. While it is true that these media spread disinformation, it is equally true that preventing access to a news source could fuel suspicions about the transparency of European institutions. Many ask: why block only some media and not all those controlled by the Kremlin? The difference between RIA Novosti and tools like RIA Kremlinpool, for example, is subtle: both convey the Russian government’s message. If the problem is state control, then no Russian media should be accessible. But this logic opens the door to a disturbing question: where does censorship stop?
The blocking of Russian channels has generated a series of reactions that reflect the complexity of the issue. On the one hand, Ukraine welcomed the decision of the European Union, defining it “a necessary step in the fight against Russian aggression”. For Kiev, this represents concrete action against the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. On the other hand, Russia reacted harshly, accusing the West of authoritarianism and fear of freedom of information. According to Moscow, the blockade is a violation of the democratic principles much praised by European countries. In between, international NGOs have expressed concern about the long-term implications of this choice. They warned that it could set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for further restrictions on freedom of expression in the future. This mix of opinions underlines how delicate it is to balance security with fundamental rights, in an increasingly polarized geopolitical context.
Telegram’s censorship is just the latest chapter in an information war that looks set to intensify. The European Union finds itself faced with a crucial choice: protecting citizens from disinformation without betraying democratic values. This war is not fought only with blockades and sanctions. We need to invest in digital education, promote independent journalism and make citizens aware of the risks of media manipulation. Otherwise, the risk is that this battle against propaganda turns into a war against freedom itself.
