By Angelo Giuliano
Administrative punishment without trial
As of December 26, 2025, the European Union continues to expand its use of restrictive measures against individuals it accuses of spreading "pro-Russian propaganda" or engaging in activities that allegedly undermine European security. These sanctions, imposed by the unelected European Council, now target not only Russian nationals but also European citizens and residents—most notably retired Swiss Colonel Jacques Baud (sanctioned on December 15, 2025) and Swiss-Cameroonian activist Nathalie Yamb (sanctioned in June 2025). The measures include asset freezes and travel bans, applied without any court hearing, criminal charges, or opportunity for legal defense.
The case of Jacques Baud
Jacques Baud, a former Swiss intelligence officer with extensive experience in strategic analysis of Eastern Europe, has been labeled a "mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda." The primary accusation centers on his analysis that Ukraine's persistent pursuit of NATO membership played a role in provoking Russia's 2022 invasion. This view is supported by publicly available statements, including a 2019 comment from Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych describing NATO accession as a potential "ticket to war." Baud's work relies almost exclusively on Western, Ukrainian, and American sources, deliberately avoiding Russian media to maintain analytical independence. Despite this, the EU classifies any explanation of Russia's security concerns or critique of NATO's eastward expansion as destabilizing "Kremlin talking points."
The case of Nathalie Yamb
Nathalie Yamb, recognized for her vocal opposition to French neo-colonial policies in Africa and her broader geopolitical commentary, faces equally severe consequences. Although she holds Swiss citizenship, Swiss banks froze her accounts in line with EU directives. She is also prohibited from traveling across EU territory. Given Switzerland's complete encirclement by EU member states, these restrictions amount to effective confinement or forced exile—without any judicial process or formal accusation of criminal activity.
How "pro-Russian" is defined
The term "pro-Russian" is applied in an increasingly broad and vague manner. Reporting on forced conscription practices in Ukraine, referencing historical extremist affiliations once openly acknowledged in Western media, or analyzing the strategic implications of NATO enlargement can now be interpreted as foreign influence operations. The EU equates stability with unanimous adherence to a single narrative: a stark binary framing of the conflict as good versus evil. Any nuance, complexity, or alternative perspective is treated as a threat to institutional legitimacy and European security.
The erosion of rule of law
These sanctions are imposed administratively, bypassing core principles of due process, the right to be heard, and the presumption of innocence. No evidence is presented or tested in court. Individuals receive no prior warning and have no formal avenue to challenge the decision. The result is a system in which executive power unilaterally punishes private citizens for their expressed opinions and analyses, creating a dangerous precedent for the weaponization of sanctions against dissent.
Chilling effect on free speech and analysis
The practical consequences are severe: frozen bank accounts lead to financial paralysis, while travel bans restrict movement across much of the continent. Beyond the directly affected individuals, a powerful chilling effect spreads. Analysts, journalists, academics, and ordinary citizens increasingly self-censor to avoid being labeled disloyal or destabilizing. Even measured criticism of the EU's own policy choices—such as the significant economic damage caused by severing energy relations with Russia—is now viewed as undermining institutional trust.
Geopolitical context and internal anxiety
This crackdown reflects mounting unease in Brussels. As the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict shifts unfavorably for Western expectations, as narrative control weakens, and as Europe grapples with economic strain, demographic decline, and the emergence of a multipolar world order, the response has been to tighten ideological conformity rather than encourage open strategic debate. The priority appears to be preserving a unified message, even at the cost of intellectual pluralism and pragmatic policy adjustment.
The path forward
The European Union risks profound internal transformation when sanctions replace discussion, when expertise becomes suspect if it deviates from approved lines, and when dissent is reframed as subversion. This trajectory undermines the democratic foundations the EU claims to defend. Restoring balance demands a return to genuine pluralism: allowing competing interpretations to compete openly, trusting citizens to evaluate evidence, and rebuilding institutions capable of tolerating disagreement instead of punishing it. Without deliberate course correction, Europe not only weakens its own values but also diminishes its standing in an increasingly complex global landscape.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Angelo Giuliano:
Opinion | Russia's strong reply: Did Europe make a big mistake?
Opinion | The true social credit experiment: Brussels, not Beijing
Opinion | Japan: America's permanent pawn – how a nation became the empire's reusable tool
Comment