The Sanctioning of Jacques Baud: Free Speech, Propaganda, and the Boundaries of Dissent in the European Union
In the shadow of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, the European Union (EU) has increasingly turned its sanctions regime not just against military or economic actors, but against individual EU citizens engaging in political speech that is widely considered protected in democratic nations. On December 15, 2025, the EU Council adopted its Decision (CFSP) 2025/2572, adding 12 natural persons and two entities to its blacklist under the framework for restrictive measures against protected speech allegedly undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine which is not an EU member state.
Jacques Baud’s inclusion in the EU sanction regime is sparking debates about free speech, human rights in democratic nations, and the parallels to historical repressions in former communist states. This move to restrict political speech by supposed democratic nations in Europe and overseen by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, is eerily similar to the criminalization of speech in the former Soviet Union which the West vehemently opposed in the 20th century. Baud’s sanctioning is not an isolated incident but part of a broader EU strategy to combat what it describes as propaganda and information manipulation which counters the information pronounced by the EU. As Kallas has emphasized in recent statements, the EU remains committed to targeting those whom she characterizes as enablers of Russian aggression, even if they are individual EU citizens who engage in free speech in opposition to the war.
But Baud’s case raises profound questions related to the procedural minimums in a democratic society. Is sanctioning a political analyst for his views akin to criminalizing dissent reminiscent of Soviet-era laws? Does it violate European or international human rights standards? And how would such actions fare under the free speech regimes of the First Amendment in the United States?
Who Is Jacques Baud?
Jacques Baud, born in 1955, is a Swiss national with a distinguished military background. A former colonel in the Swiss Army, he served as a strategic analyst, intelligence officer, and specialist in terrorism. His career included roles in international organizations, such as advising NATO and working with the United Nations on peacekeeping and disarmament issues. After retiring, Baud transitioned into scholarship and public commentary, penning books like The Russian Art of War and Governing by Fake News: 30 Years of Fake News in the West, in which he critiques Western foreign policy, particularly regarding the Ukraine conflict.
Baud’s scholarly analyses often challenge the official EU narratives. He has argued that NATO’s eastward expansion provoked Russia’s invasion, that Ukraine’s government has neo-Nazi elements, and that Western media perpetuates misinformation about the war. These views have made him a frequent guest on pro-Russian outlets, such as RT and Sputnik, where he accuses Ukraine of “orchestrating its own invasion” to accelerate NATO membership. The EU labels such claims, which run counter to its official claims, as conspiracy theories. While Baud maintains his independence, insisting his opinions stem from professional expertise rather than allegiance to Moscow, the EU has portrayed him as a “mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda.”
The EU Council labels Baud and his political speech as follows:
He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO. Therefore, Jacques Baud is responsible for, implementing or supporting actions or policies attributable to the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability or security in a third country (Ukraine) by engaging in the use of information manipulation and interference.
His sanctioning has drawn attention from free speech advocates and geopolitical commentators. For instance, Norwegian professor Glenn Diesen highlighted the irony on social media, noting that Baud, a former Swiss intelligence officer, was targeted for “spreading ‘Russian propaganda.’” Such a volatile charge by the EU evokes broader concerns about stifling alternative perspectives on the war.
Details and Rationale of EU Sanctions
The EU’s decision sanctioning Baud for his speech imposes an asset freeze and travel ban on Baud, preventing him from entering or transiting EU territory and requiring member states to immobilize any funds or economic resources he holds. Kaja Kallas, as High Representative, played a key role in advocating for and announcing these measures. In press conferences and statements, she has underscored the EU’s desire to counter Russia’s information networks, which she views as integral to its hybrid warfare strategy. Kallas, a former Estonian prime minister with a hawkish stance on Russia, has ironically warned that political speech, such as that of Jacques Baud, erodes democratic resilience and justifies aggression. The sanctioning of Baud aligns with Kaja Kallas’s earlier condemnation of Russia’s alleged escalating hybrid activities, as referenced in the Council decision. However, there is no evidence that Baud is in any way affiliated with the Russian government at all.
Echoes of the Soviet Past?
Critics have drawn parallels between Baud’s sanctioning and the repressive articles of the former Soviet Union’s penal code. Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Republic of the former Soviet Union, titled “Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda,” provided, in part, as follows:
Agitation or propaganda carried on with the purpose of undermining or weakening the Soviet state, or the commission of individual crimes against the state which are especially dangerous, or the dissemination of libelous fabrications defaming the Soviet governmental and social system, or the dissemination or production or keeping of literature of similar content for the same purposes—shall be punishable by deprivation of freedom for a period of from six months to seven years, or exile for a period of from two to five years.
Similarly, Article 190-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Republic of the former Soviet Union provided, in part, as follows:
The systematic circulation in an oral form of fabrications known to be false which defame the Soviet state and social system and, likewise, the preparation or circulation in written, printed or any other form of works of such content shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term not exceeding three years…
These old criminal codes of the former Soviet Union and other similar codes from earlier in the Soviet era were used to silence dissidents like the author of Gulag Archipelago Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the Soviet Jewry.
Similar to the persecution of dissenting opinions in the former Soviet Union, the EU’s labeling of Baud’s political speech as “propaganda” and “conspiracy theories” mirrors Soviet accusations of “anti-Soviet agitation.” Both the EU’s decision to sanction Baud and the Soviet era laws used to persecute Soviet dissidents are tools by the state designed for internal control in a totalitarian regime, applied domestically against its own citizens. While the EU acts to perpetuate its own state narrative in connection with Ukraine, sanctioning political speech risks normalizing the suppression of inconvenient truths, much like the Soviets did to maintain ideological hegemony.
Democratic Perspective and the First Amendment
Under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), freedom of expression is allegedly protected. Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 19 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 19 safeguard freedom of expression as well. In the United States, political speech is strongly protected by the First Amendment.
Hypothetically, if Baud were an American citizen expressing these views domestically and sanctioned by the American government, it would violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects political speech robustly, with no general exceptions for “propaganda” or disinformation or hate speech. In the Supreme Court, content-based restrictions face strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. Such criteria are rarely met for pure political expression. Precedents like Brandenburg v. Ohio (protecting advocacy short of imminent incitement) and New York Times v. Sullivan (shielding criticism of public affairs) would shield Baud’s commentary. In other words, the EU decision to sanction its own citizen for political speech and free expression would be repugnant to the First Amendment and contrary to the procedural minimums necessary in a democratic society. American courts routinely reject viewpoint discrimination, favoring a “marketplace of ideas” where chaos and clashing opinions strengthens democracy through rational debate.
Broader Implications
Baud’s case exemplifies the perils of government “balancing” free speech. In Europe, the EU’s decision to sanction Baud risks abuse such as labeling dissent as harmful in order to silence critics. Free speech absolutists and those that truly support democracy argue that humanity possesses sufficient rationality and empathy to thrive in a rigidly open society. The chaos of unrestricted discourse is not a weakness of a democratic system but rather a strength, exposing falsehoods through collective scrutiny rather than top-down censorship from the state. This optimism aligns with John Stuart Mill’s philosophy that suppressing ideas, even erroneous ones, hinders truth-seeking. In an era of information wars, absolutism trusts people to discern propaganda, fostering resilience without empowering authorities to arbitrate truth. As an alleged union of democratic nations, this is a lesson the EU might heed as it navigates geopolitical tensions. In conclusion, Jacques Baud’s sanctioning by the EU and Kallas underscores the fragility of democracy and liberty. Such sanctioning evokes historical authoritarian repressions and clashes with the necessary procedural minimums in a democratic society. As debates rage, it serves as a reminder to the EU that we cannot defend democracy by destroying it.
