Unbroken: EU Removes His Human Rights. But He Won't Give Up | Col. Jacques Baud

## Introduction A European Union sanctions list has quietly become a blunt instrument that can erase a person’s ability to live normally without ever passing through a courtroom. The recorded conversation with Col. Jacques Baud exposes how an emergency-style foreign policy tool has been deployed against someone living inside the EU, freezing bank accounts, curtailing movement and stripping away ordinary civil freedoms without judicial process. Beyond the individual injustice, the exchange reveals a deeper institutional shift: decision-making by policy that progressively displaces decision-making by law. That shift has consequences not just for one expert or whistleblower but for the principles that used to protect all citizens from arbitrary state power. ## Personal Situation and EU Sanctions The description of what happened to Col. Baud is stark: placed on an EU sanctions list overnight, notified only after the fact, and left without access to funds or the ability to transact inside the Union. The sanctions were taken as a political measure rather than a criminal one, which means no indictment, no hearing, and no opportunity to mount a defense in the usual adversarial sense. The consequences are immediate and human—not abstract. Frozen accounts prevent paying rent and buying food; travel bans lock a person into a single place; legal limbo suspends participation in civic life. Baud’s background complicates the image painted by the sanctioning authority. A former Swiss intelligence officer and long-serving adviser to international organizations, including the United Nations and NATO, he has worked professionally as a mediator and analyst—roles that demand impartiality and nuanced understanding of opposing parties. He insists that his public commentary reflects that professional commitment: he avoids incendiary labels and propaganda tropes, declines overt affiliations with state media, and repeatedly frames his work as analysis rather than advocacy. The sanction, therefore, raises the question of whether expression that falls within the realm of legal speech can be treated as a justification for cutting off civil liberties when it offends a political majority. ## Precedents and Collateral Damage The conversation situates this case within a growing list of individuals targeted by extrajudicial measures under sanctions frameworks. Some sanctioned people are foreign domiciled; others, like Baud, reside in Europe itself. The mix of nationalities, the inconsistencies in official listings (cases of wrongly stated nationality have been noted), and the selection process all suggest an opaque decision-making mechanism vulnerable to error and abuse. A striking claim made during the exchange is that Baud may be collateral in a broader political move aimed at others. If the real intended target is a different individual abroad, using a local resident as the public face of the action becomes an expedient way to broaden political reach while masking the primary objective. Whether or not that interpretation is correct, its plausibility is the point: when sanctions are wielded as instruments of policy improvisation rather than tested legal determinations, they produce collateral damage that can be severe and uneven. The missing safeguards—no prior notice, no required evidence standard, no clear avenue for immediate relief—mean mistakes and political opportunism have human victims. ## Legal Strategy and Rules-Based Order The legal landscape facing someone in this position is doubly difficult. The European Council’s competence to impose sanctions is established, and the recourse available—bringing a challenge before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—is narrow and procedural. The court’s review typically focuses on whether the factual assertions supporting the listing are accurate, not whether the sanctioned speech was legally protected or politically legitimate. Even successful challenges can be undermined by re-listing under slightly different accusations. The procedural constraints of this remedy turn the judicial system into an after-the-fact filter rather than a preventative check. This procedural reality is symptomatic of a larger vocabulary change: replacing talk of an “international law-based order” with a “rules-based order.” Col. Baud and the conversation underline how this verbal slippage maps onto action. Laws are written, debated, and enforceable against all; rules can be interpreted, redefined, and applied selectively. When a polity moves from law to rules as its organizing principle, remedies that once relied on clear statutory guarantees disappear into discretionary policy tools. The result is a legal architecture tilted toward executive flexibility and political litmus-testing. ## Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law What emerges from the exchange is the distinction between being governed by law and being governed by the strategic use of law-like instruments. Rule of law implies predictability, equal application, and protection against arbitrary deprivation. Rule by law describes the inversion: legal forms are used strategically to dismantle protections for some while preserving privileges for others. Sanctions regimes operating without judicial transparency become blueprints for that inversion. Historical parallels are not idle. The post-9/11 security turn demonstrated how emergency logics—detention without trial, secret evidence, preventive action—can migrate from exceptional circumstances into normal governance structures. The conversation sketches a similar trajectory in the European context: measures originally designed for external coercion are internalized as tools to manage dissent and reputation. When states adopt the functional logic of emergency measures for routine political disagreements, the legal shields that citizens rely on are eroded. This is not only a matter of legal theory; it is a lived reduction in civil protections. ## Media Narratives and Propaganda One of the more contested elements in the sanctions debate is the boundary between commentary and propaganda. The recorded discussion highlights how allegations of being a “mouthpiece” for a foreign power can function as both a substantive accusation and a rhetorical device that short-circuits normal evidentiary procedures. In an environment where reputational judgments can trigger material penalties, labeling becomes consequential in itself. Baud’s insistence that he has declined direct invitations to state-affiliated broadcasters and that his books avoid propagandistic language illustrates the difficulty of policing influence in a plural media environment. Media ecosystems fragment and amplify; content that begins as analysis can be repurposed by other actors. Under a sanctions logic that privileges political symptom management over forensic proof, that repurposing can retroactively justify punitive measures against the original analyst. The conversation therefore raises a stark question: if the metric for sanction is downstream use rather than intent or content, who among the public can be confident that ordinary expression will remain protected? ## Systemic Weakness and Future Precedents The broader diagnosis offered is structural: a system increasingly comfortable with wielding non-judicial instruments to manage complex geopolitical narratives. When an entity with policymaking discretion can impose penalties that feel indistinguishable from criminal sanctions—without criminal process—the potential for abuse scales. The conversation warns that such a precedent is contagious. Other states or blocs could adopt similar mechanisms, leading to a patchwork of extrajudicial sanctions each justified under different political banners. Two cascading effects are worth highlighting. First, a normalization of extrajudicial sanctions changes the incentives of political actors: it makes short-term reputational wins easier and long-term legal accountability less necess

Unbroken: EU Removes His Human Rights. But He Won't Give Up | Col. Jacques Baud On December 15, the EU listed the former Swiss army colonel, Jacques Baud, on its Russia Sanctions list, barring him from even buying food. He isn't suffering because he committed any crime. On the contrary, his actions are perfectly legal; they are just not the kind of "behavior" the EU likes to see, so it uses a foreign policy tool (sanctions) to bar him from all and any activities of normal human life. But Col. Baud is unbroken. He is resisting the draconian measures and decided to pick up the fight against this regime extralegal injustice. Make no mistake: What is happening to Col. Baud could happen to anyone tomorrow. The sanctions are a regime of pure, arbitrary political persecution. Links: Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com (Opt in for Academic Section from your profile settings: https://pascallottaz.substack.com/s/academic) Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:01:06 Personal Situation and EU Sanctions 00:13:58 Precedents and Collateral Damage 00:21:12 Legal Strategy and Rules-Based Order 00:34:42 Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law 00:41:55 Media Narratives and Propaganda 00:54:21 Systemic Weakness and Future Precedents 01:00:36 How to Support Jacques Baud #Pascal Hello everybody, this is Pascal Lottaz from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm again joined by my countryman Jacques Baud, a former Swiss intelligence officer and Swiss Army colonel. Jacques, welcome back. #Jacques Baud Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me again. And thank you—I want to take this opportunity to thank you for everything you’ve done in support of my case: the interviews you’ve conducted, all the people who have shared their views on your channel. I think this is extremely useful. It’s also been useful for me to better understand my case. #Pascal And I just need to say, because I didn’t mention it in the introduction, you are currently sanctioned by the European Union, although you yourself are living in the European—actually, in the belly of the beast—in Belgium. And since December 15th, you’ve been under these draconian measures where all your money is frozen. You’re not allowed to travel, you’re not allowed to leave Belgium, you’re -- 1 of 16 -- not allowed to buy food, you’re not allowed to buy anything. Nobody’s allowed to have transactions with you. It’s a pretty insane situation, isn’t it? Can you describe it for us a bit, for people who haven’ t heard about it—although I’m sure many of our listeners have heard of the case by now? #Jacques Baud I think by now, as you said, a lot of people know about it worldwide. But in any case, I was put under sanctions on the 15th of December, as you rightly said. I was not informed beforehand, so I was taken by surprise on that day. This is a political decision, not a judicial one, meaning that I’ve never been in front of a court. I have never breached any law, and I’ve never been accused of breaching any law. I had no opportunity to defend myself, to be represented by a lawyer, or to present my case. I haven’t even been shown the case so far. So this is a unilateral decision—one that deprives me of my freedom of movement and, I would even say, my freedom of living, because as you rightly said, the sanctions have frozen my accounts in the EU, meaning that I cannot pay for anything. I cannot pay my bills. I cannot buy food. I cannot buy, I don’t know, gas for my car or whatever. Since the 15th of December, I’ve been living entirely on the generosity of my neighbors, on the solidarity of people here in Brussels. I’ve received a lot of offers of help—people wanting to support me within the European Union, in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, of course, and so on. But so far, I’m living on the generosity of people in my neighborhood. The EU, without any due process, has in fact removed my fundamental freedoms—including freedom of speech, by the way. This is quite odd because, as you probably know, I’m an expert on the rule of law for the UN. #Pascal You worked for the UN—several UN bodies—and you also served as an advisor to NATO. #Jacques Baud In the last 20 years of my life, I’ve worked for international institutions. I’ve worked for the UN, obviously, mainly in peacekeeping operations, but also on institutional reform. For instance, in Ukraine, I was there as an expert on reform of that institution. I’ve worked for the African Union in Nairobi, and my last position was as an advisor to NATO. I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms within NATO. And in that capacity, I also became, let’s say, acquainted with the conflict in Ukraine, because that was precisely in 2014, when the conflict really started there. So this is my background. Before that, I used to be a strategic analysis officer in Swiss intelligence. That was a long time ago. I was in charge of the Warsaw Pact—not just the Soviet Union, but also all the Eastern European countries. And this is, more or less, my background in a nutshell. I have extensive experience in conflict mediation, and that’s important to understand because I’ve mediated several conflicts in -- 2 of 16 -- Africa where—well, precisely when you do mediation, you cannot be a party to the conflict. I mean, you have to understand the position of both sides, and you cannot, as a mediator, show that you favor party A or party B. You have to be impartial. Impartial means with no party. And that's exactly my professional experience. I’ve mediated in different conflicts. In that capacity, I was able to help, or even free, hostages just by talking to the parties, in a very similar way to what the ICRC does on several occasions. You don’t take a position; you just analyze, you understand the position of both parties, and that helps you solve the issue. And that’s exactly the same position I have with any other conflict—it may be in Palestine, Venezuela, or Ukraine. I have absolutely no party. I never said, in any way, that I was in favor of the victory of party A or party B, or the defeat of party A or party B. This is not my mantra. I mean, I’m an analyst, and I try to understand how both parties think in a conflict. That’s the whole idea. So it’s important to understand that, in order to see how the sanctions work. In fact, the text of the sanctions says that I’m a mouthpiece for Russia, and I can’t understand that, because I never tried to be. I’ve refused or declined invitations from Russian media to appear on their channels. It may happen that some of my interviews were picked up by Russian media and used—that’s possible—but I’ve never agreed to be directly interviewed by them, precisely to avoid having my work misunderstood as propaganda. And if you read my books, for instance—because I’ve written several books about conflicts, particularly the one in Ukraine—you’ll see that I avoid any language usually associated with propaganda, such as “Banderite” or “Ukrainian Nazi,” or things like that. I explain the distinction between Nazi and neo-Nazi. I don’t use the word “Nazi” to describe, for example, ultranationalists. I never did that, and I explain why I don’t and why I don’t want to. So I’ve made every effort not to be a propagandist. And that probably says something about the sanctions, because despite all the efforts to be neutral and impartial, you’re still considered a propagandist. #Pascal And that’s something. That’s just one layer. The other layer, though, is that even if you did that— even if you did propaganda, even if you repeated it—it still wouldn’t break a law in the European Union. That would still be legal. It would still be covered by freedom of expression. And actually, that’ s exactly why you’re being sanctioned and why they’re not sending the police to arrest you—because you didn’t break any laws. The European Union even says sanctions are not punishment. They say so. Sanctions are an extralegal mechanism to destroy somebody’s life. And they’re extralegal because they’re not illegal—they’re actually within the competence of the EU Council—but they circumvent all the legal protections you usually have. That’s why they tell you you have to go to the European court to get them lifted. At best, you can get them back, but they took them away, even circumventing the legal protections you should have in Belgium. #Jacques Baud -- 3 of 16 -- Sorry to interrupt you. You're absolutely right about that. I fully agree. And you’ve explained it, by the way, extremely well in some of the previous videos you’ve done. That’s very interesting. But there’s an additional sublayer, if you want, to that. Because, as you know, the decision on the sanctions was taken by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the EU. In essence, these sanctions are, in fact, a foreign policy measure. Yes. But I’m living within the EU. Yes. And here you see the contradiction. It’s very interesting, because we’re moving toward a situation not very far from what you had in the U.S. just after 9/11 with the Patriot Act, for instance, which blurs the line between foreign policy or foreign action and domestic action in the security area. And here we are in a very similar situation, although I have no security—fundamentally, no, not a single law regarding security. But the EU is using foreign policy tools to sanction someone who is inside the EU. That’s quite unique, as far as I know. There are other cases of people who have been sanctioned, also for issues related to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or things like that. I’ m not aware of all the cases. My understanding—and I may be wrong on that—is that most of them live outside the EU. Meaning that, of course, this is still, as you rightly said, an issue of freedom of speech and freedom of opinion and all that. Basically, it's the same human rights issue. But in addition to that, I have a problem—and that's an institutional problem within the EU—that they use foreign policy measures to address domestic policy issues. And that's a new layer to it. I understand there are some explanations for using the sanctions. But again, these sanctions are meant to target people who live outside the EU. I mean, I think in the list I'm on—the list from the 15th of December—there are about 60 entities or persons. I think I'm the only one who lives in the EU. Most of them are outside the EU. #Pascal Sorry, yes. There’s one, actually—the case before mine—and his name is Hussein Dogru. He’s a German citizen living in Germany who was sanctioned in late 2024 or early 2025 under the same sanctions regime. The EU actually has three sanctions regimes, but this one is the Russia sanctions regime. And he’s been under sanctions in Germany for over a year now. The outrageous thing is that on the sanctions list, his nationality is listed as Turkish. But he told me in an interview, “No, I’m not Turkish. I don’t have Turkish nationality. I’m German, and German only.” Yet they still list him as Turkish. #Jacques Baud That's an interesting point, because in my case—again, I can’t judge his case—but that points to decision-making that’s quite fuzzy. In my case, I’m not sure people realize, I don’t consider myself the main target of my own sanction. I think—again, I don’t know exactly what the process is—but according to some information I have, I was put on the sanctions list by the French government. My personal interpretation—and again, that’s just my interpretation, I have no real proof—is that the -- 4 of 16 -- real target of the French government was actually Xavier Moreau, a French citizen living in Russia, who also works with RT and similar outlets. So he’s probably the real target of the French government. But that would be the first time the French government targets its own citizens. And personally— again, that’s just my interpretation—I may be wrong on that. But my interpretation is that the French gover