In return, their assets have been frozen and they are banned from moving around the EU. One of them is retired Swiss colonel Jacques Baud. His always accurate analyses are based on a deep knowledge of Ukraine and years of experience as a Swiss intelligence analyst and NATO collaborator.
What do our ministers think Colonel Baud has done? Let us quote the Brussels accusation in its entirety (CFSP Council Decision 2025/2572): 'He is a regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes. He is a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and creates conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of organising its own invasion in order to join NATO. Jacques Baud is therefore responsible for actions or policies attributed to the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten the stability or security of a third country (Ukraine), or which it carries out or promotes by engaging in information manipulation and interference."
Anyone who follows Baud knows that he is not accusing Ukraine of orchestrating the invasion. But he occasionally quotes Olexiy Arestovych, who in 2019, in his capacity as military adviser to President Zelensky, declared that Ukraine must join NATO and that the price for doing so would be a major war with Russia.
Ukraine has allowed itself to be manipulated into war by the West
Earlier, Baud himself claims that Ukraine allowed itself to be manipulated into war by the West. However, even if he were to say that Ukraine provoked the war, he would not be breaking any laws or other norms, except those that the authoritarian regime in Kiev has adopted. Moreover, this is a thesis for the debate that needs to be had about the ongoing war.
Let us note that the Brussels document does not dare to accuse Baud of any direct collaboration with Russia. They accuse him of media appearances. The media are not Russian, but 'pro-Russian', which is a label applied to Western media that have not succumbed to the obligatory Russophobia. Let us add that even appearing in the Russian media is not yet a crime or an offence. Nor is he accused of collaborating with the Russian government, but of supporting "activities or policies attributed to the government of the Russian Federation that undermine" Ukraine. Thus, by his media appearances, he is supporting something that ministers may not know Russia is doing, but can be attributed to Russia.
We find nothing more in the Brussels document on this matter. And on this basis, he is now deprived of freedom of movement outside Switzerland and of access to his own assets, including, for example, a bank account if it is held in a bank from an EU country. The document defining the sanctions generously gives Member States the option, 'under such conditions as they deem appropriate', to release some of the frozen funds 'to meet basic needs, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage payments, payments for medicines and medical care, payments of taxes, insurance premiums and public service charges'.
If Baud had the misfortune to deposit all his money in a European bank, he would have to wait anxiously to see whether he would be granted the grace to ensure that he would not starve to death, be thrown out of his flat or be imprisoned for non-payment of taxes.
A spate of mischievous activities
How is it possible that someone who has not broken any law is put in this situation by an official decision?
Like everything in the EU, this decision has the appearance of legality. December's decision is based on a decision from last October that seeks to protect the EU and Ukraine from rogue activities (CFSP Council Decision 2024/2643). It is intended to target those in Russia's service who undermine democratic political processes (disrupting elections, overthrowing the constitutional order), plan violent demonstrations, intimidate and silence those critical of Russia, engage in coordinated manipulation of information, and plan attacks on state institutions or interference with critical infrastructure.
They are planning the targeted use of migrants, using armed conflict to illegally exploit natural resources and instigating or facilitating armed conflict in Ukraine.
Let us leave aside the fact that, if we replace the word 'Russia' with 'EU', we get an apt typology of European action over the last three years. However, we will look in vain for what Jacques Baud was supposed to have done in all of this. He is accused of 'conspiracy', which is as close as we can get to 'coordinated manipulation of information'. How and by whom it was to be coordinated, however, we shall not know, nor will he himself. What we can say with certainty, however, is that the information he provides is factually accurate and performs the important public service of informing debate on a politically pressing issue.
One of the bizarre features of the December decision is that it refers, in the introductory part, not only to the decision of last October, described above, but also to the statement made by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in July.
After Kaja Kallas returned from her disastrous trip to China in the summer, where she was lectured by the Chinese Foreign Minister on the dos and don'ts of what to expect from global partners, she took it out on the Russian bastard in Brussels. Russia is said to be waging a coordinated and long-running hybrid campaign to undermine the democratic foundations of the EU and its members.
There is nothing unusual about Kallas's outpouring itself; we hear similar nonsense from the European elite all the time. They look for the Russian hand behind everything that does not suit them: from Trump, to opposition criticism, to farmers' protests. The distinction between democratic debate and the Russian hybrid campaign is completely blurred in their conception. But it is significant that this nonsense is being fed into the motivation section of the sanctions document. Anyone who is publicly labelled as pro-Russian is thereby placed in the sanctions crosshairs.
Other cases
Jacques Baud is not alone. France has forced its citizen Xavier Moreau onto the sanctions list. He has lived in Russia for several years, holds Russian citizenship and has appeared in Russian and other media. Also on the list is an American, John Mark Dougan, who also lives in Russia with Russian citizenship and is allegedly working with military intelligence to spread fake news. If this corresponds to reality, he is doing for his new homeland what the elite of the Western journalistic mainstream are doing for theirs.
The sanctions have also hit Diana Panchenko. A prominent Ukrainian journalist who has been awarded the titles of Journalist of the Year (2020) or Ukraine's seventh most influential woman (2021). She had the misfortune of being a freelance reporter before the war, when she came into conflict with the regime when it closed down the media outlets in which she worked - something that was still criticised in Brussels at the time.
After the Russian invasion, which she condemned, she dared to claim that a bad peace was better than a good war.
Eventually, she was forced to flee her country. Our ministers accuse her of 'manipulating information to portray the Ukrainian authorities as 'Nazis' and accusing them of betraying their own people, while justifying Russian military aggression and crimes'. They refer to - in their eyes, apparently the highest authority - her posts, which 'the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has described as propaganda justifying war crimes'.
Surely, who else but Ukrainian intelligence should decide on the journalists on Brussels' blacklists.
The list also includes several respected Russian experts and academics: the director of the Institute of International Relations at MGIMO, Andrei Sushentsov, the deputy director of the Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics, Dmitry Suslov, the editor-in-chief of the academic journal Russia in Global Affairs, Fyodor Lukianov, Andrei Bystritsky and Ivan Timofeyev, who are prominent faces of the Valdai Club.
In a way, it is in the perverse interest of the European verkhusha that Russian intellectuals do not roam Europe much. They are mostly critical thinkers who don't believe very much in what their own government or President Trump says about European decline. They often harbour a positive image of Europe from the days of their youth, which still gives Brussels some ideological clout in parts of the Russian elite.
Who knows what would happen to this image and influence after their visit to London, Paris or Berlin. However, it is incredibly embarrassing that Brussels is punishing respected foreign experts for defending and explaining their government's policies in their country's media.
Where is the rule of law?
But while the European sanctions against these Russians and Ukrainians are unjust and undignified, the asset freezes and entry bans aimed at the Swiss and the French are criminal. In the rule of law, which Brussels is so fond of talking about, if a citizen is suspected of breaking the law and is threatened with punishment, the state first investigates and then gives the suspect the opportunity to defend himself before an independent court, which ultimately decides on the punishment.
In Brussels, they have created an institutional monster that allows a citizen to be cut off from his property and freedom of movement without breaking the law, without an investigation, without a trial - by a decision of the foreign ministers on the basis of suggestions from intelligence services, NGOs and activist officials.
What does it say about the rule of law in France when its Foreign Minister announces with satisfaction that, via Brussels, he has had the assets of a citizen of his own country who has not broken its laws frozen?
Let us recall that the political responsibility for this decision lies with each of the twenty-seven ministers. Sanctions are decided unanimously; if even one is opposed, they cannot be imposed.
Time for a rematch?
The December decision was also endorsed by ministers Juraj Blanár and Péter Szijjártó. They approved sanctions against Baud, imposed for saying nothing more than what their governments claim.
Let us hope that they were not properly informed. Let us hope that in six months' time, when they decide on sanctions again, they will take the opportunity to retort.
Perhaps the new Czech Foreign Minister, from a party that is vehemently committed to freedom of speech, will help them to do so.