Network
Culture
Blue
People
When Dissent Becomes a Crime: The EU Sanctions Against Colonel Jacques Baud
The retired Swiss colonel sat in his home in Belgium, unaware his name had just appeared on an EU sanctions list. His crime? Writing books. Giving interviews. Quoting Western sources about the war in Ukraine.
Jacques Baud didn’t hack government servers. He didn’t leak classified documents. He didn’t incite violence. Instead, the 70-year-old analyst committed what Brussels now considers an offense worthy of asset freezing and travel bans: he questioned the official narrative.
A Career Built on Western Trust
For decades, Baud was the establishment’s insider. Between 1983 and 1990, he served in Swiss Strategic Intelligence. He monitored Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War’s final chapter. After the Soviet Union collapsed, he sat across from Russian military officials in sensitive negotiations.
The United Nations called on him repeatedly. In 1997, he helped establish programs against anti-personnel mines. By 2005, he was leading the UN’s first multidimensional intelligence unit in Sudan. In New York, he headed the Policy and Doctrine Unit for UN Peacekeeping Operations.
NATO wanted him too. For five years, from 2013 to 2017, Baud worked in Brussels. His mission: combat the proliferation of small arms across Europe. He participated in NATO programs in Ukraine, particularly during the Maidan Revolution in 2014.
This was no fringe conspiracy theorist. This was a man Western institutions trusted with their most sensitive work. Swiss-trained. American and British intelligence-educated. A specialist in counterterrorism and Eastern European affairs.
Then he started asking uncomfortable questions.
The Analysis That Triggered Sanctions
On December 15, 2025, the EU officially sanctioned Baud, claiming he spread “pro-Russian propaganda” and “conspiracy theories.” The main accusation? That he suggested Ukraine orchestrated its own invasion to join NATO.
But Baud never made such a simple claim. What he did reference was a 2019 interview with Oleksiy Arestovych, who would later become a Ukrainian presidential advisor. In that interview, Arestovych stated that the best scenario for Ukraine was “a large scale war with Russia” that would lead to NATO membership. He claimed defeating Russia would be Ukraine’s entry ticket to the alliance.
Was Baud inventing this? No. He was quoting a Ukrainian government official. Yet somehow, citing Western and Ukrainian sources became grounds for sanctions.
The EU claims Baud “acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda.” But here’s what critics of the sanctions find troubling: Baud himself states he “never uses Russian material” for his books, relying “exclusively on Ukrainian and Western information”. He’s even refused invitations from Russian media outlets.
His methodology was deliberate. Use Western sources. Use Ukrainian government statements. Avoid Russian propaganda. Let the contradictions speak for themselves.
What Jacques Baud Actually Said
In his writings and interviews, Baud made specific claims about the Ukraine conflict. He argued that NATO expansion was a primary driver of the war. He pointed out that Western officials had acknowledged this connection, including former US Ambassador to Russia William Burns, who warned in 2008 that Ukrainian NATO membership would cross Russian red lines.
He documented that Ukraine had been shelling the Donbas region since 2014, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths. He cited OSCE reports and UN figures to support these claims. He questioned why Western media largely ignored eight years of conflict before Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Baud also challenged the narrative about Russian military failures. While Western media initially predicted Russia’s swift defeat, Baud analyzed the conflict as a war of attrition, where Russia held strategic advantages.
Recently, in an interview with the YouTube channel Dialogue Works, Baud stated that Europe still hasn’t understood the conflict will end on Russia’s terms. He stressed that whether the outcome is decided on the battlefield or at negotiations, Russia will shape the final settlement.
Is he right? Time will tell. But being wrong about geopolitical predictions has never been a sanctionable offense before.
The Dangerous Precedent
The sanctions mean Baud cannot travel within EU countries, and his assets in the eurozone are frozen. EU citizens and companies are prohibited from providing him funds or resources.
No trial. No defense. No opportunity to challenge the evidence. Just a bureaucratic decision that a man’s analysis threatens European security.
Former UN expert Alfred de Zayas warned this represents “a civilizational collapse.” He’s not alone in his concern.
The EU sanctioned 12 individuals in total on December 15, including five experts from the Valdai Club, a Russian-based forum, where President Putin speaks annually. The message is clear: any platform that allows Russian perspectives is suspect. Any analyst, who doesn’t align with NATO’s position, risks punishment.
Critics point out the irony. The EU claims to defend democracy and freedom. Yet it punishes dissent without judicial process. It freezes assets based on political opinions. It bans travel for writing books.
The Censorship Creep
Baud’s sanctions don’t exist in isolation. They’re part of a broader pattern across Europe.
The Digital Services Act grants the EU unprecedented power to police online speech. Under the guise of fighting “disinformation,” the legislation compels social media platforms to remove vaguely defined “harmful content.”
In 2024, European Commissioner Thierry Breton sent a letter to Elon Musk, warning that allowing Europeans to view an interview between Musk and Donald Trump could trigger EU “measures” against X. The crime? Speech that might have “spillovers” into Europe.
French authorities have requested posts be removed from X based on political content. German officials have labeled tweets calling for deportation as hate speech. Polish entities have demanded TikTok remove posts questioning electric vehicles.
The Economist, hardly a radical publication, dedicated its May 2025 issue to Europe’s free speech crisis. The headline: “JD Vance was right.” US Vice President Vance had warned at the Munich Security Conference that free expression in Europe was under siege.
Even the Council of Europe, which oversees the European Court of Human Rights, has issued warnings. In September 2025, it released guidance noting that criminal sanctions used to suppress speech create “chilling effects” that silence critical and dissenting voices.
Switzerland Refuses to Comply
Notably, Switzerland announced it would not adopt the sanctions against Baud. The Swiss Secretariat for Economic Affairs confirmed awareness of the EU decision, but stated Switzerland didn’t join the EU sanctions regime on “hybrid threats” enacted in October 2024.
Switzerland has followed EU sanctions related to Russia’s military invasion. But it drew the line at sanctions targeting speech and analysis.
This creates an unusual situation. Baud, a Swiss national, is sanctioned by the EU, but not by his own country. He can live freely in Switzerland, but faces arrest, if he crosses into EU territory.
The Swiss position sends a message: there’s a difference between sanctioning military aggression and sanctioning intellectual dissent.
The Questions That Won’t Disappear
How did we reach this point? When did analyzing geopolitics become equivalent to human trafficking or terrorism?
The EU lists “hybrid threats” alongside actual crimes. Under this framework, a retired colonel citing Ukrainian officials receives the same treatment as arms dealers and propagandists actively working for hostile governments.
Sanctions are no longer being used to punish illegal acts, but to discipline discourse. They operate without due process. They create chilling effects far wider than their immediate targets.
What makes Baud’s case particularly troubling is the precedent. If a respected analyst with decades of Western institutional experience can be sanctioned for his analysis, who’s next?
Journalists, who interview the wrong people? Academics, who publish inconvenient research? Citizens who share articles that question official narratives?
The sanctioning authority doesn’t explain what analytical framework Baud should have used. It doesn’t specify which sources are acceptable. It simply declares that his conclusions undermine European security.
This creates impossible standards. Analysts cannot know in advance which interpretations will trigger sanctions. The only safe position becomes total conformity with the official line.
Democracy or Conformity?
A society confident in its values doesn’t need to freeze bank accounts to win arguments. It doesn’t need to conflate analysis with subversion. It doesn’t need to silence critics to maintain security.
The appropriate response to analysis is counter-analysis. If Baud’s interpretations are wrong, they should be refuted with evidence and logic. His books cite approximately 1,000 sources. Those sources can be examined. His arguments can be challenged.
Instead, the EU chose punishment over debate.
The danger extends beyond one retired colonel. When governments police interpretation itself, when bureaucrats decide which thoughts are permissible, democracy becomes an empty word.
Europeans face genuine security challenges. Russia’s actions in Ukraine deserve serious analysis and response. But meeting those challenges by abandoning the principles of free inquiry and open debate is self-defeating.
As more voices face sanctions for dissent, the question becomes urgent: Is the EU defending democratic values, or systematically dismantling them?
Jacques Baud may be wrong about some things. He may be right about others. But his greatest crime might be this: he forced uncomfortable questions into public view. And in today’s Europe, asking the wrong questions can cost you everything.
The sanctions remain in place. The precedent is set. And the message to other analysts is unmistakable: conform, or face the consequences.
Sources and Links
EU Official Sanctions Documentation:
News Coverage:
Jacques Baud’s Background and Analysis:
- The Postil Magazine: thepostil.com/our-interview-with-jacques-baud
- The Postil Magazine: thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine
- Dialogue Works YouTube Channel: youtube.com/watch?v=68Ej8aFlUoE
- Military Affairs: voennoedelo.com/en/posts/id7225-ex-nato-advisor-ukraine-conflict-will-end-on-russia-s-terms
EU Censorship and Free Speech Concerns:
- Brussels Signal on EU Speech Restrictions: brusselssignal.eu/2024/01/the-eus-hate-speech-bill-is-not-simply-about-being-tough-on-prejudice-but-it-is-a-crackdown-on-dissent-and-a-restriction-on-democracy
- Council of Europe Warning (September 2025): coe.int/en/web/portal/-/excessive-limits-on-freedom-of-expression-harm-europe-s-democratic-security
- ADF International Analysis: adfinternational.org/commentary/europe-free-speech-crisis
- Atlantic Council on US-EU Dispute: atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-eu-dispute-over-free-speech-is-set-to-escalate
- House Judiciary Committee Report on DSA: judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-censorship-threat-how-european-unions-digital-services-act-compels
- Wikipedia on EU Censorship: wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_European_Union
