The Brussels Narrative Machine: A Quick Field Guide.
A citizen’s guide to the EU’s information-management ecosystem.

Kristian Thyregod
Dec 27, 2025


Most Europeans have heard the words “disinformation,” “hybrid threats” and “digital sovereignty.” Very few have ever seen the actual machinery that now sits behind those labels in Brussels – or how it can affect individuals.

In the space of a few days, the EU has used its Russia “hybrid threats” regime to sanction a Swiss former intelligence officer living in Brussels for his commentary on the war in Ukraine – freezing his assets and banning his movement inside the Union. At the same time, Washington has imposed visa bans on five Europeans, including a former EU commissioner and leaders of EU-funded “disinformation” NGOs, accusing them of pressuring American tech platforms to censor U.S. viewpoints.

Both sides claim to be defending democracy and free speech. Both are now using powerful state tools – sanctions, visa bans, regulatory pressure – to police what is said online, and by whom.

Why read this piece?
This piece is not about picking a side in that transatlantic quarrel. It is about something closer to home: what kind of information-management machine your tax money is funding in Brussels – and what it means for you if you happen to disagree with the “approved” line.

It seeks to map, in plain language:

the in-house units that track and label “disinformation,”

the survey and communication services that tell you what “Europeans think,”

the EU-funded fact-checking and NGO networks that sit between Brussels and the platforms, and

the new legal tools – from the Digital Services Act to hybrid-threats sanctions – that can now be used against individuals.

For an ordinary citizen, this is not an abstract debate. If you speak out about EU policy, Ukraine, sanctions, or transatlantic tech rules, you are doing so in an environment increasingly shaped – and, at times, policed – by this system. You don’t need to be afraid of it. But you do need to know it exists, what it can do, and where its limits are supposed to be.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a simple map of the main EU structures that now shape what is labelled “information”, “disinformation”, and “public opinion” – and who pays for them.

1. In-house narrative engine
East StratCom Task Force / EUvsDisinfo (EEAS)

What it is

A unit inside the EU’s diplomatic service (EEAS), created in 2015 to “address Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns.” It runs the public EUvsDisinfo site, which tracks and “debunks” what it calls pro-Kremlin disinformation and publishes weekly Disinfo Reviews.

What it does

Monitors Russian-linked narratives.

Labels stories as “disinformation” in a public database.

Produces ready-to-share graphics, bullet points and “myth vs fact” content for EU officials and media.

Who pays

Staff and core operations funded from the EEAS budget and the Commission’s foreign-policy instruments.

Extra anti-disinformation funding from the European Parliament: about €1.1m (2018), €3m (2019) and €4m (2020), with strategic-communications spending rising to roughly €11.1m in 2021.

2. The opinion factory
Eurobarometer (DG COMM)

What it is

The EU’s own polling system: regular cross-country surveys run since 1974 on behalf of EU institutions, coordinated by the Media Monitoring and Eurobarometer unit of DG Communication.

What it does

Designs questions on trust in the EU, sanctions, climate, enlargement, etc.

Produces headline figures on “what Europeans think” that are widely quoted by the Commission and Parliament.

Who pays

Entirely funded from the European Commission (DG COMM) budget – the same political executive that then cites its findings to legitimize policy.

3. Coordination hub for “disinformation”
European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO – central platform)

What it is

A Commission-created platform that connects fact-checkers, academics and media-literacy projects across the EU to “fight disinformation” and support implementation of EU rules.

What it does

Collects data and research on disinformation.

Coordinates EU-wide responses, tools and best practices.

Serves as a bridge between Brussels, national hubs and platforms.

Who pays

Initially €2.5m from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).

Then €4m in 2022 and about €2.5m in 2025 under the Digital Europe Programme (DIGITAL).

4. Local monitoring and “resilience”
EDMO national / regional hubs

What they are

Fourteen-plus regional consortia (universities, fact-checkers, media organizations) covering different parts of the EU information space.

What they do

Monitor local media and social networks for “disinformation.”

Produce fact-checks, reports and media-literacy material in national languages.

Feed findings back into EDMO central and EU institutions.

Who pays

EU grants via CEF and Digital Europe; a recent call offers around €6m to fund new or extended hubs through 2026.

5. Fact-checking networks
European Network of Fact-Checkers & EFCSN

What they are

A new European Network of Fact-Checkers, to be funded by the Commission as part of the “European Democracy Shield,” scaling fact-checking in all EU languages.

The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), an association of fact-checkers that defines “independence and quality” standards, originally backed by an EU pilot project.

What they do

Verify content, label posts, and feed corrections into platforms and media.

Work closely with EDMO, platforms and regulators on “best practice.”

Who pays

A dedicated €5m EU call (2025) to build and run the Network of Fact-Checkers, on top of earlier funding for EFCSN and EDMO.

6. Rules for the platforms
Code of Practice on Disinformation + Digital Services Act (DSA)

What it is

A “pioneering” voluntary code from 2018, strengthened in 2022, that commits large platforms and ad players to demonetize disinformation, cooperate with fact-checkers and offer more transparency – now formally integrated into the Digital Services Act as a benchmark for compliance.

What it does

Translates EU concern about “disinformation” into concrete obligations for very large platforms (risk assessments, mitigation measures, data access for vetted researchers, etc.).

Makes cooperation with fact-checkers and EDMO part of the expected compliance toolbox.

Who pays

Platforms bear the direct compliance costs.

The European Commission (DG CONNECT / Digital Strategy) funds monitoring, the “Transparency Centre”, research, and much of the surrounding fact-checking ecosystem.

None of these bodies are secret. All of them are funded with public money. Taken together, they form an information-management ecosystem in Brussels: one that defines what counts as “disinformation,” finances those who monitor and label it, surveys citizens to check the mood, and increasingly backs all of this with hard law and sanctions.

If you live in the EU, you are paying for this system. You should at least know it exists.

Note on sources and limits

All of the structures and budget figures in this field guide are drawn from public EU documents and official communications. Some of the numbers (for example, 2018–2021 allocations for strategic communications and anti-disinformation work) are the most recent consolidated data currently available, but the machinery has almost certainly grown and evolved since then. This is a best-effort snapshot, not an exhaustive, real-time inventory.

It is also worth stressing what this map cannot show. A system of this size will operate through parallel channels – informal political coordination, ad hoc task forces, and regulatory pressure that never appears as a line item in a budget. What is visible here is the formal backbone: the units, observatories, surveys and networks that are openly funded to shape how “information”, “disinformation” and “public opinion” are defined and handled.

The recent U.S. sanctions on several European “disinformation” actors have pushed some of these structures briefly into the spotlight, as those affected present themselves as defenders of free speech and open debate. The purpose of this piece is not to litigate that dispute, but to give ordinary EU citizens enough of the wiring diagram to understand the scale and character of the system that now sits between them, their elected representatives, and the information space they live in.

You cannot judge a system you’re never allowed to see. This is simply an attempt to turn on the lights. Tread carefully inside it.

Author’s note …
Part of a continuing inquiry into Europe’s geopolitical realism and strategic culture.

https://kristianthyregod.substack.com/p/the-brussels-narrative-machine-a?r=3jx1d&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true