A Sanction That Explains the System

The EU’s decision to sanction Jacques Baud is a demonstration and a warning of things to come.

Baud — a former Swiss intelligence officer and military analyst — has not been accused of espionage, violence, or criminal activity. He has been sanctioned for analysis. More precisely, for analysis that contradicts the dominant EU–NATO narrative on Ukraine, Russia, and Western escalation.

This is where Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966 matters.

That decision quietly expanded the EU’s sanctions framework from targeting material support to targeting what it calls “destabilising narratives” and “information activities”. In plain terms: speech, interpretation, and political analysis now fall within the scope of coercive measures — without judicial process.

Baud’s case illustrates how this works in practice.

First, the travel ban. Baud is barred from entering or transiting EU member states. It prevents his participation in conferences, academic events, media appearances, or public debate inside the Union. Sanctions are no longer only about money; they are about removing a person from the European public sphere.

Second, the prohibition on financial dealings. EU individuals, banks, publishers, platforms, and institutions are forbidden from providing Baud with funds or “economic resources.” That includes honoraria, speaking fees, publishing contracts, or even routine payments if they are deemed to confer an economic benefit. The effect is chilling by design: people and institutions self-censor to avoid legal risk.

Third, the asset freeze. Any assets Baud holds within EU jurisdiction are frozen. He cannot access them, transfer them, or benefit from them. No court ruling is required. No conviction is necessary. The decision is administrative, political, and preventive.

Together, these measures amount to civil incapacitation — imposed not after a crime, but in anticipation of influence.

This is precisely the mechanism I analysed in my article on CFSP 2025/966. The Baud sanction is not about Baud. It is about establishing precedent: that dissenting geopolitical analysis can be reclassified as a security threat, and neutralised through sanctions rather than debate.

Switzerland has not adopted these measures. But the EU has — and that distinction matters less than it seems. The gravitational pull of EU sanctions reaches publishers, platforms, conferences, banks, and intermediaries well beyond EU borders.

The broader implication is uncomfortable but clear: Europe now treats narrative deviation as something to be managed administratively, not contested intellectually.

Baud’s sanction is a warning signal to anyone who still believes that strategic disagreement falls safely within the bounds of protected political expression.

If you want to understand how this became legally possible, and why CFSP 2025/966 marks a turning point in Europe’s sanctions doctrine, the full analysis is here:

👉

If you think this is about Russia think again. This is about Europe — and the shrinking space between security policy and speech control.