The Council of Foreign Ministers of the EU approved the document, which is a scandal of a new kind. And the threat of where we are heading as the EU.
CommentsEUwar in Ukraine
There are assumptions that can no longer be relied upon. For example, that the draft of the EU document, which is given to a Slovak official, then to the ambassador and finally to the minister for approval, is true. That it fits in the assumptions. That you can rely on its content and vote on it with confidence.
An example is the latest Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2572 of December 15, 2025, which amends Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 on restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilizing activities.
This decision imposes sanctions against 12 individuals and two organizations, mostly Russians, one Ukrainian, one person has dual citizenship, Russian and American. The list includes one French and one Swiss, plus two organizations, one Russian and one international. I can’t judge all names and contexts, but some can if I want to express myself. In particular, it will be about one Russian analyst and the new approach of the EU in this topic. Agents of secret services, especially of foreign countries, will not interest me, after all, there are well-established approaches to them (so I will not deal with members of the GRU, I will also leave two organizations aside, even if in the case of the International Russophile Movement, the topic would require special consideration).
I think that Minister Blanár, like the Hungarian Minister Szijjártó, did not vote for this decision of the Council consciously, rather they raised their hands in ignorance. However, the result is the same and serious. Therefore, it is necessary to learn from this and correct the mistakes caused.
Let’s stick with two people, they are the ones who certainly make a scandal out of the decision.
The name of Colonel Jacques Baud, a former soldier of the Swiss army who worked for the Swiss services, for the UNHCR, and briefly for NATO, has a special significance. His basic thesis when looking at the war in Ukraine is the dispute over the expansion of NATO and Ukraine’s responsibility for the tragic dimension of this decision. The Ukrainians didn’t think it through or think it through. They believed what Arestovych described with cynical ease as a condition for Ukraine’s entry into NATO, that the price for entry is a war with Russia.
The promise of NATO is long gone, the war continues. The debate about who bears the greatest responsibility for the tragedy is still waiting for Ukraine.
Colonel Baud is a special case, Vladimír Palko devotes a special role to him in his new text, as he has been following him for a long time. It is not that there is nothing to criticize about his views, after all, disagreeing is the basis of a pluralistic discussion, the scandal is that opinions (and some of them overlap with the opinions of the American president or vice president) are enough and the EU can put you on the list of sanctioned persons, freeze your accounts and de facto put you under house arrest.
If you want to take a closer look at his views, I recommend the interview that Daniel Kaiser did with Colonel Baud two years ago, the headline says a lot: “Zelensky traded peace with Russia for support from NATO and the EU. The West betrayed him.”
The scandal is not only that Baud was listed as an enemy of the EU with these views, that his accounts were frozen and his free movement was made impossible, but also that Switzerland was unable (and willing) to defend its citizen, that the colonel learned all this from the newspaper, that now he cannot leave his Brussels apartment. And especially that there is not the slightest reason for it all. Swiss journalist and editor-in-chief of Weltwoche Roger Köppel has already addressed all of this, Vladimír Palko describes everything in more detail.
Another name is also a scandal – Fyodor Lukianov. That is the main topic of this text. This is because it is a problem that goes beyond one name and it reveals a new principle of thinking in the EU institutions, which must be rejected.
Together with Lukianov, a group of Russian academics Dmitry Suslov, Andrey Sushentsov, Ivan Timofeev, Andrey Bystricky, and Ukrainian journalist working in exile Diana Panchenkova are also sanctioned. However, I will only stick with Lukianov, the only one of them I occasionally follow.
Lukianov was interviewed by our American colleague Jonathan McCormick back in Standard, you can find him here. Here, too, the headline briefly offers a sample of his thinking: “I don’t expect a great victory for Russia, but the West will end up weakened.”
In recent years, Lukianov has collaborated with a number of important institutions, but primarily he is the editor-in-chief of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs, which was created on the model of the American magazine Foreign Affairs. Lukianov moderates discussions with President Vladimir Putin at the Valdai club, and his texts are probably known to everyone who deals with geopolitics.
In his last comment, he addressed the new American security strategy. He noticed that America no longer sees Russia as Mordor, but pointed out that Americans still see Russia as part of a system whose center is the West, i.e. the USA (Western-centered system), which, according to him, is no longer true.
His note on Europe is also worth paying attention to, let’s quote:
“The notion that Europe can rebuild itself into a coherent political entity, with or without Russia, is far from certain. The continent’s fragmentation is deep, its interests divergent, and its dependence on outside powers entrenched. US strategy envisions a Europe reorganized according to American interests, integrated into an Atlantic framework that ultimately serves Washington’s goals. Whether such a Europe exists even as a theoretical possibility is a completely different question.’
This is exactly the feeling I had after meeting the Romanian politician Calin Georgescu.
Lukianov’s text was published a day after the EU put him on the sanctions list at the suggestion of Kaja Kallasová.
And again, the scandal is not what Lukianov would have committed, he is an analyst and an intellectual, he appears on some podcasts (most often heard on Glenn Diesen), his views enrich the discussion and help to understand Russia. The scandal is why the EU feels the need to sanction people like Lukianov.
The document officially states the following, followed by a longer quote:
“In his articles, interviews and public appearances, Lukianov consistently spreads Kremlin propaganda and portrays Russia’s offensive war against Ukraine as a defensive response to Western policies. He repeatedly accuses the Union, NATO and the United States of ‘provoking’ the conflict, describes Ukraine as a proxy for the West rather than a sovereign state, and justifies Russia’s military actions as ‘necessary’ to stop NATO expansion. His arguments are often cited in the pro-Kremlin media and form the intellectual framework used to legitimize Russian aggression. His work in the Valdai Club and in the magazine Russia in Global Affairs directly supports the Kremlin’s foreign policy narratives, which shift the blame for the war to Ukraine.
Therefore, Fyodor Lukianov is responsible for activities or policies or responsible for supporting activities or policies attributable to the Government of the Russian Federation that undermine or threaten democracy, the rule of law, stability or security in a third country (Ukraine) or that undermine or threaten the sovereignty or independence of a third country (Ukraine) by encouraging or otherwise facilitating the use of information manipulation and by interfering or inciting violent conflict in a third country.” End of quote.
When one reads that accusation, one feels that it must have been written by someone who does not read or know Lukianova. Lukianov does not “spread” anything, he does not “accuse” anyone, he does not “justify” anything, he is not “responsible” for any of Russia’s policies, and he does not threaten democracy, the rule of law in Ukraine (ugh!) or the sovereignty of Ukraine.
The analyst analyzes, describes, explains. The author of the accusations is wrong about the genre.
Moreover, Lukianov’s views on the war say something completely different:
“This war is a catastrophic tragedy for both nations, for the people of both states. It has elements of a civil war, elements of a confrontation between two nation-states, and a large part of it is the international context and Western influence. In the end, we have an absolutely catastrophic result of two very close nations killing each other for reasons that – one fine day in the future – will probably not be considered sufficient.”
Lukianov considers the expansion of NATO as the cause of the war even a pretext (“pretext”), he sees the problem more broadly:
“Let’s put it simply, the idea behind European security measures after 1990 was: The more NATO, the more security. And Russia was always dissatisfied with it, even though it did not actively resist it for quite a long time. There were very clear statements from the beginning – from Yeltsin and all his foreign ministers, including Andrey Kozyrev, who is now the main supporter of the USA. All Russian politicians at the time, including pro-Western ones, they were saying that expanding NATO was a bad idea – a bad idea for the future of European security.”
Therefore, his accusation by the EU does not fit in the basic points, it is a caricature of reality.
However, there is another more serious problem. Why does the EU actually go after intellectuals like Lukians? What does Brussels want to achieve?
The answer to this question is worse than the sanction against Lukianov as such. The EU is currently walking in the opposite direction to Trump’s America, we are preparing for a long and deep conflict with Russia, which the end of the war may not change. Rather, it will be the other way around. In this dispute, not only Russian athletes, Russian oil and gas, Russian music and literature, but also Russian scientists and intellectuals will hinder us. Brussels will get in the way if someone talks to Russian analysts, polemically or approvingly, if they invite them to conferences or attend their conferences in Russia.
Thinking has started to get in the way of the European Union. People who think differently than the officials in Brussels think.
There is something more fatal in this than in sanctions against oil than gas, it is the Chinese approach.
It is not surprising that Mrs. Kallas, who comes from a “good” communist Estonian family, has a similar approach. He understands that. However, it must – or rather should – hinder everyone else.
In conclusion, only two remarks.
At the next opportunity, Minister of Foreign Affairs Blanár could visit Colonel Baud in Brussels and turn his cause into an even bigger cause. Straighten a crooked mirror. This principle worked under communism and it still works today. He should also be interested in the story and fate of Lukianov and his academic colleagues.
Blanár should systematically change the approach to EU documents and also the preparation of documents before the Council of Ministers, in which our representatives also participate. You cannot rely on the approach of Brussels and their level, what is written in them does not fit. We should no longer be interested only in our own citizens, especially if it is a sanction list, but we must also start to be interested in the citizens of other states, in the principle that innocent people are not sanctioned. It calls for a state of hybrid warfare, the rule of law and common sense. In time, this approach can turn against our own citizens, and there will be no one to stand up for them. But the changes must first be made at home on the zamini, then talk about them with the Hungarians and Czechs.
The second note is below the line, together with Vladimír Palko, Petr Števkov and Jonathan McCormick we signed a letter in support of Jacques Baud, organized by Patrik Baab. It is one of the basic experiences from the communist period that even the former regime could be pressured to comply with its own laws. The anniversary of Charter 77 is approaching, its legacy is a bit more relevant again.