Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet | Glenn Diesen

## EU Sanctions on Colonel Jacques Baud The decision by the European Union to place Colonel Jacques Baud on its sanctions list marks an unmistakable escalation in how political dissent and independent analysis are being policed inside the European policy space. The conversation at the heart of this analysis exposes the absurdity: Baud, a retired Swiss intelligence officer and published analyst, is penalized not for criminal acts but for publishing views—often sourced from Western statements—that the EU characterizes as “pro‑Russian.” The procedural bluntness is striking. A single paragraph on an EU database, pairing a name with a handful of allegations, translates instantly into travel bans, frozen services and social exclusion. The measure does not proceed through courts; it arrives by executive fiat. That combination—the swiftness of the decision and the thinness of the public evidence—creates a precedent with far‑reaching implications for dissenting experts across Europe. This episode is not an isolated bureaucratic misfire. It signals a political strategy: harness executive mechanisms to manage the information environment without the delays and scrutiny of judicial process. As the conversation points out, Baud’s analysis relied heavily on Western sources, including direct quotations from Ukrainian officials. Yet this did not inoculate him from the charge of spreading Kremlin talking points. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Baud’s conclusions, the substance of his work—open sourcing, citation of established public statements—raises questions about proportionality and the standards the Union applies when designating individuals. The EU’s toolbox for “countering propaganda” is becoming indistinguishable from an instrument of censorship by association. ## The Collapse of Rule of Law in Europe The core institutional worry raised is that the European Union’s executive apparatus is operating with minimal democratic accountability. Sanctions are being deployed in the informational domain not as a last resort for serious threats, but as a pre‑emptive means to silence narratives deemed inconvenient. The decisionmaking, as described in the exchange, frequently bypasses transparent deliberation: lists are drawn up, descriptors attached, and the penalties effectuate without judicial hearing. That dynamic flips the separation of powers on its head—administrative organs act as prosecutor, judge and executioner simultaneously. This trend undermines the legitimacy of European governance at a time when legitimacy is most needed. Democracies survive contestation only if they preserve institutional avenues for challenge and redress. When executive councils start defining what constitutes destabilization in vague, politicized terms, the boundary between lawful political persuasion and punishable subversion blurs. The chilling effect spreads well beyond those listed: academics, journalists and civil society actors now face realistic risk that traveling, banking and professional activity can be curtailed based on nebulous narrative criteria. In practical terms, rule of law is not only about courts; it is about predictable, reasonably adjudicated limits on state power. The recent practices described betray both. ## Defining "Pro-Russian" Narratives One of the most revealing patterns in the exchange is the elasticity of the term “pro‑Russian.” It functions less as a precise descriptor and more as a rhetorical hazard label that can be affixed to any argument that complicates the prevailing Western narrative about the conflict. Describing the label as catchall is deliberate: calling a position “pro‑Russian” can mean advocating better relations with Moscow, echoing Russian talking points, or simply pointing to inconvenient admissions by Ukrainian officials. Without a clear operational definition, the label becomes an instrument of delegitimization rather than an analytic category. This slippage is dangerous for several reasons. First, it deters rigorous, evidence‑based scholarship; analysts will self‑censor to avoid being tarred. Second, it reduces complex geopolitical debates to binary moral judgments—loyal or traitorous—rather than incentives and constraints. Third, it allows for selective enforcement in line with political priorities: when you conflate critique of policy with support for the enemy, every policy debate becomes a national security risk. The conversation underscores how this semantic conflation is not accidental but politically useful: it consolidates the narrative monopoly of state actors who prefer a simplified story of unprovoked aggression and moral clarity. ## The Case of Diana Panchenko The inclusion of Diana Panchenko on the sanctions list exemplifies the biographical and normative elasticity that defines recent EU measures. As the participants note, Panchenko was characterized in Council language as a “Ukrainian‑born journalist and propagandist” producing “anti‑Ukrainian, pro‑Russian narratives.” What warrants scrutiny here is the mismatch between the content being criticized—reporting on forced mobilization and the conduct of Ukraine’s authorities—and the severity of the institutional response. Reporting that highlights human costs or critiques mobilization policies is, in normal democratic contexts, central to public oversight. Rebranding such reporting as hostile propaganda transforms civic accountability into a security offense. The Panchenko case also reveals the gendered and symbolic dimensions of contemporary media politics. High‑profile media figures who dissent—particularly those who reach large audiences—become examples used to instruct the public on the bounds of acceptable discourse. Cutting platforms, suspending channels, and ultimately applying sanctions functions as an escalatory pathway for states and supranational bodies that want to reassert control over contested narratives. The result is predictable: fragmented public spheres, with fewer spaces for critical reporting on allied governments, and a greater reliance on monologic messaging. ## Panic and Power Grabs in Brussels Brussels’ political culture, as interpreted in the conversation, is prone to panic‑driven centralization when faced with strategic setbacks. The discussion suggests the EU is reacting not only to external threats but to internal anxieties about loss of narrative control. When policy outcomes—military, economic or diplomatic—fall short of expectations, institutions often attempt to salvage authority by tightening control over the informational ecosystem. The swift expansion of executive tools to freeze assets, block persons and label narratives can be understood as a defensive reflex intended to prevent reputational erosion. But reflexive centralization has costs. It invites mission creep: measures adopted for wartime information management become normalized for peacetime political disputes. The conversation draws attention to the asset‑seizure debate as a case in point—procedural rules were retooled to lock funds indefinitely, a move rationalized by expediency rather than legal continuity. When governance by emergency becomes common practice, the institutional toolkit shifts in ways that persist beyond the crisis. The long‑term effect is a more brittle polity: one that responds to dissent with administrative coercion, thereby fueling resentment and reducing democratic legitimacy. ## US National Security Strategy & European Decline Embedded in the exchange is a broader geopolitical diagnosis: Europe’s informational and institutional shifts cannot be divorced from the contours of transatlantic strategy. The United States’ national security posture, especially where it emphasizes primacy and narrative control to sustain alliances, places the EU in a position where alignment of messaging becomes a strategic imperative. The pressure to conform grows when allied policy options narrow and when political leadership fears being blamed for perceived

Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet How did we reach a point where quoting Western sources gets you branded a foreign propagandist? Is the EU's executive branch now completely out of its mind, punishing dissenters without trial under the guise of fighting "propaganda"? To discuss this Orwellian turn, I sat down with my friend and colleague Glenn Diesen. As a professor at the University of Southeast Norway and a sharp geopolitical analyst, Glenn brings the necessary depth to understand why Europe is seemingly criminalizing objective analysis. Links: Glenn's YouTube Channel: @GDiesen1 Glenn's Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/ Glenn's X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall. com Timestamps: 00:00:00 EU Sanctions on Colonel Jacques Baud 00:04:25 The Collapse of Rule of Law in Europe 00:09:57 Defining "Pro-Russian" Narratives 00:17:53 The Case of Diana Panchenko 00:22:50 Panic and Power Grabs in Brussels 00:30:11 US National Security Strategy & European Decline 00:36:55 The Rapid Erosion of Free Speech 00:43:31 Contradictions in US Foreign Policy 00: 49:34 Conclusion #Pascal Hello, everybody. I'm joined again today by Glenn Diesen, my colleague and friend in Norway. I'm sure you all know him. He’s running a wonderful YouTube channel as well, and he’s a professor at the University of Southeast Norway. Glenn, welcome back. #Glenn Diesen Thank you for inviting me back. #Pascal I wish it were under better circumstances, but at the moment a lot of things are going really, really badly. We first need to talk about our colleague Jacques Baud, who, since yesterday—today we’re speaking on December 16th, and yesterday, December 15th—was sanctioned by the European Union. Jacques Baud, of course, is a Swiss colonel, a former Swiss colonel now retired, living in a European country. He’s been on your podcast, he’s been on my podcast, and he gives brilliant analysis, especially on Ukraine and Russia. He’s written books about Ukraine, Russia, and the origins of the Ukraine war. And now the European Union is accusing him of spreading Russian propaganda and has put him on the sanctions list. Could you believe it when you heard that? #Glenn Diesen -- 1 of 15 -- Well, it did take me by surprise, mostly because they went after someone of his stature, which was interesting. But it’s a direction the EU has been going in. You’ve also spoken about the decision to sanction German citizens who have been reporting abroad—people who can’t come back home, who have their bank accounts frozen. So it’s not the end of the story. Whenever you see these horrible things happening now, you have to see them in the context of where we’re heading. But I guess what makes this so especially troubling is not just that he’s a colonel from Swiss intelligence. The main thing—the main topic I always discuss with him—is his concern about how the EU is pursuing policies that undermine its own economic and security interests. And part of the reason is that the EU has locked itself into narratives; it doesn’t accept alternative ones. So even if you have facts that can be verified, they’re not allowed into the discourse if they undermine the narrative. And he, as a colonel in Swiss intelligence, is very concerned, because if you’ re not able to identify the main issues—the main problems—then you can’t resolve them, and you can’t act in your own interest. That’s the main point. And then they said, “Well, this is Russian propaganda.” It’s become a word you can just throw around; it doesn’t have to be proven. They use these little catchphrases like “Kremlin talking points,” as if your argument merely sounds like what the Russians might say—hence, you’re a propagandist. I mean, because the EU is always right, the Russians are always wrong, and if you contest that, well, it’s because you stand on the side of the Russians. So this is… yeah, not good times in Europe. #Pascal No, not at all. And you're right about the context. I should also add that he's not the first Swiss person included on the EU sanctions list. Before him, in June this year, Nathalie Jamp was added. She's a Swiss-Cameroonian binational, but she’s been living in Switzerland—she’s Swiss, born in Switzerland, with a Swiss passport and everything. And shame on me, the news didn’t reach me; I didn’t see it, I didn’t realize it. But already in June, she was put on the sanctions list. She told me just a moment ago, when I finally reached out to her, that this had very severe impacts on her. Although Switzerland is not in the European Union, the Swiss banks still froze her accounts, and she cannot fly over EU territory. So I'm not going to tell you where she is right now, but it’s like this: if you’re abroad, you can’t go back to Switzerland; if you’re in Switzerland, you can’t go abroad. You’re locked in. Switzerland is completely surrounded by the European Union. So this is very, very severe and draconian. And we’re talking here about just accusations, right? Nothing proven in a court of law. I mean, Glenn… what does this tell us about the state of the European Union? This is a punishment not given out by the judicial branch—it’s the executive branch handing out punishments on private citizens of our countries. #Glenn Diesen -- 2 of 15 -- No, this is not democratic control. There’s no scrutiny. This is, as you said, the unelected European Council just pushing out these decisions. And, of course, if you go to the EU’s own website, you can see how it’s framed. The name of the document is—yeah, it’s a decision concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilizing activities. So you argue that Russia is destabilizing Europe, which means—well, how would you operationalize that? What exactly would this translate into, in terms of specific activities? And then it says that whoever makes points or arguments that could be seen as supporting or legitimizing Russia is destabilizing. They’re destabilizing because they’re threatening the EU. And also, if you criticize the EU leadership or their decisions, well, you’re kind of destabilizing too, because people might lose trust in the EU leadership. So any dissent now can be seen as destabilizing, because stability, in their view, means we all agree that our conflict with the Russians is a black-and-white story—a fight of good versus evil, the forces of light versus darkness. And if you’re now taking the side of darkness by trying to defend them, meaning to explain what Russia is doing, then you can be seen as a destabilizing force, and they’ll come for you as well. I mean, of all people, to go after Colonel Jacques Pou—this really can’t be explained in a sensible way. They have to talk in clichés and slogans, with these vague ideas about “destabilizing Europe” just for questioning its leadership. I mean, this is where we are now. #Pascal But, you know, also Nathalie Jambon—I mean, she’s an anti-colonialist. She’s trying to call out all the harm that’s still being caused, especially by France, through these lingering neocolonial behaviors of France and Europe. You know, this kind of rhetoric is exactly what we say human rights and freedom of expression are for, right? So that citizens can criticize their states and the environment they live in, so we can have a healthy democracy. And I thought—at least, you know—even if the European Union is imperfect, and our Western democracies are imperfect, I thought at least the separation of powers was working. But again, this is a punishment from the executive branch on individuals who have not been found guilty in any court of law. How is it possible that the executive, right now in the EU, is able to amass all of these powers? And maybe we can also put this in the context of the frozen Russian assets. You know, they’ re going there—they’re jumping over so many steps. I was just going to compare this to the... #Glenn Diesen Stealing the Russian assets—because in the EU, of course, they had this vote every six months on whether or not to extend the sanctions, and they all have to agree. But now, of course, as they see they’re losing the argument and the war might come to an end, there’s pressure, since some member states don’t necessarily want to vote to renew the sanctions. And many member states are -- 3 of 15 -- also a bit frightened that the EU will now essentially break all the rules—basically stealing, taking the Russian assets—something that’s never been done before. So it’s quite extreme. And so, what does the EU do? Because when it meets opposition, what does the European Union do? Well, it just plows through. So now, of course, they suspended this—there will be no more voting. They just changed it. Now the assets are permanently frozen. In order to release these assets, all members have to agree to release them. So even countries like Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia—you know, which are very Russophobic to the core—they would never release anything. So that’s under great pressure. But yeah, so this is... And how is this done? How is this legal within the European Union? Well, it’s not. The rules don’t mean anything anymore. It’s just nonsense. And I just want to add one more thing, Jacques Baud, because again, I have the document here from the EU Council where it says that, yeah, he's a former Swiss Army colonel and strategic analyst, blah, blah. He's a guest on pro-Russian programs—television and radio programs—pro-Russian. So it's not even Russian; they're seen as pro-Russian. What exactly is “pro-Russian”? If you're an academic, you want to unpack this. Does that mean you think it’s important to have good relations with Russia, which is the largest country in Europe? Do you have to hate the Russians? I mean, does it mean that you support the Russians against the West? It can mean everything and nothing. So they just throw these terms out—“pro-Russian.” He acts as a mouthpiece, I mean... And then the evidence they use is that he’s responsible for supporting these conspiracy theories. The one example they give here is, for instance, accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion to join NATO. Now, what Colonel Baud actually said is that he quoted Arestovych, who was an advisor to Zelensky, quite a prolific figure within Zelensky’s administration. Arestovych gave an interview back in 2019 where he essentially predicted when the Russian invasion would come, exactly what the Russians would take, and what they would do. And he argued that this had to be done because a major war with Russia would be the ticket into NATO. He essentially said, you know, our threat to join NATO will eventually trigger a Russian invasion, and then NATO will come in and assist us, and we’ll defeat the Russians. So this will be our ticket to NATO—a big war with Russia—and, uh, “it will be very cool,” is what he said. I mean, he’s quoting Arestovych. Now, if this is Zelensky’s top advisor, how is this a conspiracy theory? I mean, at that point, you’d have to say that Kyiv is spreading propaganda about itself, conspiracy theories about itself. He’s just quoting it. But now he’s sanctioned. It’s not that they disagree with him or come with a counterargument—they sanctioned him. This is... this is very dark. This is very Soviet. #Pascal That's the whole point. They don't have to prove anything, right? They don't. And this is just a little passage, a paragraph. That paragraph, together with his name, nationality, and date of birth, is in this database. And whoever’s in that database doesn’t get any more services from any EU-linked -- 4 of 15 -- organization, right? Otherwise, they get punished. So they don’t need to do anything else but put their names and that little extract in there. They don’t need to prove anything. In a court of law, this couldn’t stand, because all of these are accusations—wild accusations—that aren’t even illegal. It’s not