A very good summary and explanation of the EU sanctions regime that anyone who wants to understand the process and context should read.

My own commentary on the topic: We need to be aware of several things.

First, the primacy of policy planning, which includes these sanctions, has shifted from the political sphere (that of elected politicians) to the sphere of the military-equity complex or "securitocracy" (or whatever term fits best; I am still working on the exact description of it). This means that national policy is mandatorily being adapted to the US-led Western hegemonic framework of action (i.e., US-led NATO and its allies). In other words, it is the military planners (and associated actors, but not really the politicians) who are planning the policies, while the politicians are merely implementing them. So, in this sense, politicians do bear the responsibility for allowing all of this to happen.

Secondly, we must understand the broader context of change in Western warfare. Due to a crisis of the transatlantic elites (who fear and know they are losing access to political power, as well as material power via resource access in other countries), they have, since around 2014, started to plan for this contingency. It is an "anti-entropic" contingency; it is about at least staying the course, even though the real aim they would like to see realized is the so-called “Global West,” or a return to the 1990s.

Thirdly, this shift in who is doing the planning also means that the narrative, as well as the optics, is clearly affected by it. On the one hand, the narrative has become absolutely clinical and cynical within the planning sphere itself (in their reports, studies, conferences, etc.). On the other hand, the shift is taking over silently and slowly; it is not politically overt or out in the open, precisely so that people cannot protest it because they remain unaware of the changes taking place against their will, well-being, and interests. Indeed, let us just look at this Defence Horizon Journal issue on cognitive warfare:

"The recognition of existential threats such as cognitive warfare is crucial to avoid defeat. Western societies must address such threats by leveraging their militaries’ adaptability. Relying solely on the military poses risks, however, necessitating a comprehensive approach to national security. Coordination among all the instruments of power under democratic control is essential for effective outcomes. Western militaries should focus on deterrence and support political decision making."

Fourthly, we can indeed say that there is a colonial method being used against the West’s own people. This occurs because of the logic of elites versus non-elites (or the capitalist versus working classes), and therein lies the struggle between the dichotomous worldview (which justifies and sanctifies exploitation and wars of conquest) and the non-dichotomous worldview of cooperation, communality, and the common good. Indeed, if we look at the primacy of political planning from the 1920s to the 1960s, the West had to compete with a model of planning centered on the common good. The development of cities and regions was tailored to well-being and the improvement of the quality of life, and grand long-term plans were developed based on a vision of humanity centered on the common good.

What we are seeing now, therefore, is the replacement of the old: for example, infrastructure is no longer for the benefit of its residents, but wholly subsumed under the term "dual-use" for the benefit of warfare planning. This is not to say that they want a world war, but this is the current model they prefer for the generation of profit, while it fits absolutely into their Manichean worldview and aims, as well. Thus, the old world of the common good is destroyed to make room for the new world of hybrid, all-domain, everywhere-and-everytime warfare; this includes destroying narratives, memory, and any resistance.

Fifthly, "all-domain hybrid warfare" with a "whole-of-society" approach means not only that this is targeted at "enemy" states, but also at members of the society within. It also means that every domain imaginable is targeted, both outside and inside, including the cognitive domain, which this EU sanctions regime encompasses.

I am working on a series of essays on all of the topics covered here. The cognitive domain, which they prefer to call the "Human Domain," according to a 2021 NATO paper, is described as follows:

“Well, the Human Domain is the one defining us as individuals and structuring our societies. It has its own specific complexity compared to other domains, because of the large number of sciences it’s based upon. I’ll list just a few and, trust me, these are the ones our adversaries are focusing on to identify our centers of gravity, our vulnerabilities. We’re talking political science, history, geography, biology, cognitive science, business studies, medicine and health, psychology, demography, economics, environmental studies, information sciences, international studies, law, linguistics, management, media studies, philosophy, voting systems, public administration, international politics, international relations, religious studies, education, sociology, arts and culture…”

Meanwhile, do read the article below, because we all need to know what we are up against.