Thankyou Pascal for taking the initiative on this flagrant abuse of free speech. I have often listened to Jacques Baud’s analysis on your podcast and on that of others. His voice needs to be heard.
Many people defend Jacques Baud by saying he is merely “critical of the West” or “asking uncomfortable questions.” The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims.
Across interviews and writings, Baud repeatedly advances a set of core assertions that go far beyond critical analysis. Taken together, they form a coherent alternative narrative that closely mirrors Russia’s official justifications for the war.
In summary, Baud has argued that:
• Russia’s invasion had only one valid explanation: the protection of Russian-speaking populations in Donbas — dismissing alternative explanations as invalid.
• Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising was a Western-backed coup, producing “unelected authorities,” and that Western governments deliberately concealed this to legitimize the coup.
• Ukraine was “forced” to create paramilitary units such as Azov, which he claims have systematically committed violence against civilians in Donbas since 2014.
• Ukraine was preparing a military offensive against Donbas before 2022, implying that Russia acted pre-emptively.
• Neo-Nazism is structurally embedded in Ukraine’s state apparatus, not merely present on the fringes, but as a permanent feature of its security and political institutions.
• Russia acted within the framework of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and that the invasion was therefore legitimate, with the “real war” beginning in 2014 rather than in 2022.
• There was no deportation of Ukrainian children, no concentration camps, and that children were relocated with parental consent and housed in “very good hotels,” while questioning the moral and professional integrity of the International Criminal Court.
• The EU and NATO are committing criminal acts, using Ukrainians as “cannon fodder,” and that widely documented events such as the Mariupol maternity hospital attack may have been staged.
• The Ukrainian government massacred its own population in Donbas, and that the legal definition of genocide could plausibly apply — reversing the usual attribution of responsibility.
⸻
Why This Matters
Each of these claims can, in isolation, be debated. The concern arises because they consistently point in the same direction:
• Russia’s responsibility is minimized or reframed as necessity.
• Ukraine’s agency and legitimacy are systematically undermined.
• Documented war crimes are denied, relativized, or attributed to staging.
• International institutions (UN, ICC, EU) are portrayed as dishonest or corrupt.
This is why critics do not see Baud’s work as neutral analysis. The problem is not that he challenges Western policy, but that his arguments repeatedly cross from explanation into implicit legitimation of Russia’s actions.
Understanding this distinction is essential if the discussion is to move beyond slogans about “free speech” and toward an honest debate about evidence, responsibility, and standards of analysis.
There is nothing neutral about your response. One should acknowledge that selection of facts that are convenient to one’s narrative can lead to different conclusions. It does not mean that these facts are not valid. If you look at reports in the Western press including BBC and Time prior to 2014, it is stated clearly that Ukraine had a “Nazi problem.” Also, the OSCE report in 2022 documented increased artillery attacks prior to the military operation. When Mr Putin offered proposals for a new security architecture in Europe that would also secure Russians in late 2022, it was rejected by both NATO and Biden. I have never heard any reasonable suggestion for an alternative to military force by Russia. If you have one , say it.
If you don't understand that Ukraine in NATO it's like Mexico/Canada in the Warsaw Pact, and pretend that the US wouldn't immediately invade to eliminate the threat, you know absolutely nothing.
Its a ridiculous argument. USA has not been threatening to occupy Canada or Mexico and annex these countries until the incompetent Trump came up with an idea making Canada part of the US.
Good work Pascal. Does the Swiss govt. stand for any substantial law of democracy these times, or has it melded into a meek vassal of Brussels? With this matter I guess we are about to find out.
The EU sanctions against Ms. Yamb and Mr. Baud are deplorable. It's an attack against truth itself.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." - The European Commission
Many people defend Jacques Baud by saying he is merely “critical of the West” or “asking uncomfortable questions.” The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims.
Across interviews and writings, Baud repeatedly advances a set of core assertions that go far beyond critical analysis. Taken together, they form a coherent alternative narrative that closely mirrors Russia’s official justifications for the war.
In summary, Baud has argued that:
• Russia’s invasion had only one valid explanation: the protection of Russian-speaking populations in Donbas — dismissing alternative explanations as invalid.
• Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising was a Western-backed coup, producing “unelected authorities,” and that Western governments deliberately concealed this to legitimize the coup.
• Ukraine was “forced” to create paramilitary units such as Azov, which he claims have systematically committed violence against civilians in Donbas since 2014.
• Ukraine was preparing a military offensive against Donbas before 2022, implying that Russia acted pre-emptively.
• Neo-Nazism is structurally embedded in Ukraine’s state apparatus, not merely present on the fringes, but as a permanent feature of its security and political institutions.
• Russia acted within the framework of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and that the invasion was therefore legitimate, with the “real war” beginning in 2014 rather than in 2022.
• There was no deportation of Ukrainian children, no concentration camps, and that children were relocated with parental consent and housed in “very good hotels,” while questioning the moral and professional integrity of the International Criminal Court.
• The EU and NATO are committing criminal acts, using Ukrainians as “cannon fodder,” and that widely documented events such as the Mariupol maternity hospital attack may have been staged.
• The Ukrainian government massacred its own population in Donbas, and that the legal definition of genocide could plausibly apply — reversing the usual attribution of responsibility.
⸻
Why This Matters
Each of these claims can, in isolation, be debated. The concern arises because they consistently point in the same direction:
• Russia’s responsibility is minimized or reframed as necessity.
• Ukraine’s agency and legitimacy are systematically undermined.
• Documented war crimes are denied, relativized, or attributed to staging.
• International institutions (UN, ICC, EU) are portrayed as dishonest or corrupt.
This is why critics do not see Baud’s work as neutral analysis. The problem is not that he challenges Western policy, but that his arguments repeatedly cross from explanation into implicit legitimation of Russia’s actions.
Understanding this distinction is essential if the discussion is to move beyond slogans about “free speech” and toward an honest debate about evidence, responsibility, and standards of analysis.
"The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims."
No, sir or madam, that is not the issue.
The European Convention on Human Rights is the issue.
"ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers."
All of Jacques Baud's opinions (thank you for stating them above) are plausible - "debatable" in your terms. They may be correct or incorrect, partially or entirely. It is of no matter either way because in the EU, expressing one's opinion is supposedly a protected human right. The freedom to hold an opinion, be the opinion right or wrong, is similarly a protected human right world-wide. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes:
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Jacques Baud is exercising a fundamental human right, and to punish him for doing so is a violation of those rights.
While fundamental human rights for the most part aren't unlimited, curtailing them is only legitimate when the well-being of others might be directly harmed by exercising the right. The law against libel is a well-known example. Jacques Baud, however, harms no one by expressing his opinions on various aspects of the Ukraine war. No harm, no foul as they say.
Col. Baud has been punished, not for harming or threatening anyone, but for putting forth a compelling narrative that differs from the official one. No one who cares about human rights can justify such punishment.
Your response is both generous and accurate. Thanks for providing it. I note it is to but one example of a spammers repeated comments pasting the same Al synthesised essay to a prompt seeking a critical view. Their response to your comment shows just how little the poster paster personally understand ot these sunctions. "Go to the courts" indeed! Which courts do they think have juristiction, and how do the sunctioned pay for counsel?
You should never be a "follower" of Pascal or anyone else. Don't be a "follower". That idea is part of what is wrong with current day culture, in the digital space and in real life.
In fact the mission of Pascal's work is to cultivate critical thinking - independent thinking - among all people. To think for yourself, be rational and fair, and don't merely respond to emotional activation by others. This is crucial for peace.
Everyone needs to lead themselves, with an active and clear mind.
Its also interesting to me that the media language uses the term "followers", which is probably an unconscious choice of the hierarchically biased bourgeois mind exercising its intention to define all perception of reality. Would it do Pascal any good for his " followers" ( listeners, audience, fans, interlocutors, admirers, critics) to call themselves " comrades"?.
Yes, you describe the disjunct between real and commodifiable relationships very clearly, if I "follow" you correctly. People are so right to feel disgusted at the direction actually imposed upon them by the babel of the interests of the money grubbers and the fog of greed they constantly disperse over the common human aspiration to live in some kind of realistic and modest harmony rather than under the hammer and clamour of alien mall builders and dividend collectors.
Well, my leader is " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", and if thats also your flag, i'll go with you!(follow?)...😘
The entire digital media regime is meant to get you to hook yourself emotionally into content in extreme and unhealthy ways.
If you read something and find it to thought-provoking or useful input, you are discouraged from making a nuanced indication of this, and instead encourged to put the emotional knee-jerk of "loving" it with a heart.
If you meet someone in digital space, they cannot be a mere aquaintance, not you must "friend" them in the fhousands. But humans cannot actually have more than 50 actual friends, and cannot really properly know more than a couple houndred people.
If you want to sign up for a mailing list, you must indicate yourself by clicking on some button that declates you to be a "follower".
And so the story goes on. Because the attention economy of the internet requires subverting human emotions for money. But we need to be careful to not just adopt these things. It comes at a cost in degrading the quality of interaction and public discousrse.
In my opinion we should challenge these misleading use of frameworks rather than just accepting the misuse and adopting it.
As much as I welcome and appreciate your initiative, I have deep doubts that the Swiss political elite still has enough backbone to stand up for the fundamental rights of its own citizens.
I was also astounded to hear his carefully argued and researched writing called " propaganda". When you learn that Callous Kallas is one of the astute brains behind the defamation, it makes more sense. I hope he sues her bankrupt.
Many people defend Jacques Baud by saying he is merely “critical of the West” or “asking uncomfortable questions.” The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims.
Across interviews and writings, Baud repeatedly advances a set of core assertions that go far beyond critical analysis. Taken together, they form a coherent alternative narrative that closely mirrors Russia’s official justifications for the war.
In summary, Baud has argued that:
Russia’s invasion had only one valid explanation: the protection of Russian-speaking populations in Donbas — dismissing alternative explanations as invalid.
Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising was a Western-backed coup, producing “unelected authorities,” and that Western governments deliberately concealed this to legitimize the coup.
Ukraine was “forced” to create paramilitary units such as Azov, which he claims have systematically committed violence against civilians in Donbas since 2014.
Ukraine was preparing a military offensive against Donbas before 2022, implying that Russia acted pre-emptively.
Neo-Nazism is structurally embedded in Ukraine’s state apparatus, not merely present on the fringes, but as a permanent feature of its security and political institutions.
Russia acted within the framework of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and that the invasion was therefore legitimate, with the “real war” beginning in 2014 rather than in 2022.
There was no deportation of Ukrainian children, no concentration camps, and that children were relocated with parental consent and housed in “very good hotels,” while questioning the moral and professional integrity of the International Criminal Court.
The EU and NATO are committing criminal acts, using Ukrainians as “cannon fodder,” and that widely documented events such as the Mariupol maternity hospital attack may have been staged.
The Ukrainian government massacred its own population in Donbas, and that the legal definition of genocide could plausibly apply — reversing the usual attribution of responsibility.
Why This Matters
Each of these claims can, in isolation, be debated. The concern arises because they consistently point in the same direction:
Russia’s responsibility is minimized or reframed as necessity.
Ukraine’s agency and legitimacy are systematically undermined.
Documented war crimes are denied, relativized, or attributed to staging.
International institutions (UN, ICC, EU) are portrayed as dishonest or corrupt.
This is why critics do not see Baud’s work as neutral analysis. The problem is not that he challenges Western policy, but that his arguments repeatedly cross from explanation into implicit legitimation of Russia’s actions.
Understanding this distinction is essential if the discussion is to move beyond slogans about “free speech” and toward an honest debate about evidence, responsibility, and standards of analysis.
Thank you for leading on this noble and timely initiative, Pascal. I would recommend that the letter is forwarded to the Secretary General of Council of Europe (not to be confused with EU Commission), a fellow Swiss and an ex-collaborator of Mr Cassis, Mr Alain Berset. If you could clock an interview with him in your next podcast on the topic of sanctions, that would be an achievement.
Thank you Pascal fort his very needed initiative. Sanctions against these two people are a shameful action by the EU Commission. They have served and spoken out to false policies. Not to harm but to better Europe and its citizens. All these so called leaders are to be replaced by Motion of No-Confidence.
Pascal what can we do? It is the EU, allegedly representing 450 million people but ignoring any vestige of freedom of speech , which is putting us all in peril. I hope that Switzerland, perilously close to this NON NEUTRAL stance, can have an impact.
I wont hold my breath, Switzerland is not neutral and still controlled by the same "mafia" the ones we are not allowed to mention or critique are those who rules over us -- what laws have been made recently in your area of people you are not allowed to "hate" ??? If all people left the EU, stopped voting for it, stopped giving them legitimacy, stopped the support and openly declared they dont, and dont want to finance it etc etc -- just small steps they can find abhorant!! Will have an impact !! Support anti EU politicians, papers, narratives etc! Hold them up on their own laws !!
Count this tin foil hat in it too! Destroying a mans life, bank accounts, his means to live and even arrest people for speech but not for warprofiteering and pushing wars should be seen as nothing but terrorism and be fought by the terrorist laws!! If they can do it to him, they can do it to you and me and everyone trying to tell the truth!!
Its a very reason that i call EU a dictatorship!! Even an authoritarian tyranny!! Inside easa legal language, they use the word COMPLIANCE like all the time!! You must be compliant to the law, except when it comes to laws THEY dont want to obey!!
Thankyou Pascal for taking the initiative on this flagrant abuse of free speech. I have often listened to Jacques Baud’s analysis on your podcast and on that of others. His voice needs to be heard.
Many people defend Jacques Baud by saying he is merely “critical of the West” or “asking uncomfortable questions.” The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims.
Across interviews and writings, Baud repeatedly advances a set of core assertions that go far beyond critical analysis. Taken together, they form a coherent alternative narrative that closely mirrors Russia’s official justifications for the war.
In summary, Baud has argued that:
• Russia’s invasion had only one valid explanation: the protection of Russian-speaking populations in Donbas — dismissing alternative explanations as invalid.
• Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising was a Western-backed coup, producing “unelected authorities,” and that Western governments deliberately concealed this to legitimize the coup.
• Ukraine was “forced” to create paramilitary units such as Azov, which he claims have systematically committed violence against civilians in Donbas since 2014.
• Ukraine was preparing a military offensive against Donbas before 2022, implying that Russia acted pre-emptively.
• Neo-Nazism is structurally embedded in Ukraine’s state apparatus, not merely present on the fringes, but as a permanent feature of its security and political institutions.
• Russia acted within the framework of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and that the invasion was therefore legitimate, with the “real war” beginning in 2014 rather than in 2022.
• There was no deportation of Ukrainian children, no concentration camps, and that children were relocated with parental consent and housed in “very good hotels,” while questioning the moral and professional integrity of the International Criminal Court.
• The EU and NATO are committing criminal acts, using Ukrainians as “cannon fodder,” and that widely documented events such as the Mariupol maternity hospital attack may have been staged.
• The Ukrainian government massacred its own population in Donbas, and that the legal definition of genocide could plausibly apply — reversing the usual attribution of responsibility.
⸻
Why This Matters
Each of these claims can, in isolation, be debated. The concern arises because they consistently point in the same direction:
• Russia’s responsibility is minimized or reframed as necessity.
• Ukraine’s agency and legitimacy are systematically undermined.
• Documented war crimes are denied, relativized, or attributed to staging.
• International institutions (UN, ICC, EU) are portrayed as dishonest or corrupt.
This is why critics do not see Baud’s work as neutral analysis. The problem is not that he challenges Western policy, but that his arguments repeatedly cross from explanation into implicit legitimation of Russia’s actions.
Understanding this distinction is essential if the discussion is to move beyond slogans about “free speech” and toward an honest debate about evidence, responsibility, and standards of analysis.
There is nothing neutral about your response. One should acknowledge that selection of facts that are convenient to one’s narrative can lead to different conclusions. It does not mean that these facts are not valid. If you look at reports in the Western press including BBC and Time prior to 2014, it is stated clearly that Ukraine had a “Nazi problem.” Also, the OSCE report in 2022 documented increased artillery attacks prior to the military operation. When Mr Putin offered proposals for a new security architecture in Europe that would also secure Russians in late 2022, it was rejected by both NATO and Biden. I have never heard any reasonable suggestion for an alternative to military force by Russia. If you have one , say it.
Putin put forward an ultimatum. He still does by the way.
If you don't understand that Ukraine in NATO it's like Mexico/Canada in the Warsaw Pact, and pretend that the US wouldn't immediately invade to eliminate the threat, you know absolutely nothing.
Its a ridiculous argument. USA has not been threatening to occupy Canada or Mexico and annex these countries until the incompetent Trump came up with an idea making Canada part of the US.
You need to learn some history - google Laura Secord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Secord#Books
Pascal,
Please speak with Mattias Desmet.
Author of: The Psychology of Totalitarianism.
And be ready for a bit of Belgian absurdism.
Good work Pascal. Does the Swiss govt. stand for any substantial law of democracy these times, or has it melded into a meek vassal of Brussels? With this matter I guess we are about to find out.
The EU sanctions against Ms. Yamb and Mr. Baud are deplorable. It's an attack against truth itself.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." - The European Commission
Many people defend Jacques Baud by saying he is merely “critical of the West” or “asking uncomfortable questions.” The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims.
Across interviews and writings, Baud repeatedly advances a set of core assertions that go far beyond critical analysis. Taken together, they form a coherent alternative narrative that closely mirrors Russia’s official justifications for the war.
In summary, Baud has argued that:
• Russia’s invasion had only one valid explanation: the protection of Russian-speaking populations in Donbas — dismissing alternative explanations as invalid.
• Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising was a Western-backed coup, producing “unelected authorities,” and that Western governments deliberately concealed this to legitimize the coup.
• Ukraine was “forced” to create paramilitary units such as Azov, which he claims have systematically committed violence against civilians in Donbas since 2014.
• Ukraine was preparing a military offensive against Donbas before 2022, implying that Russia acted pre-emptively.
• Neo-Nazism is structurally embedded in Ukraine’s state apparatus, not merely present on the fringes, but as a permanent feature of its security and political institutions.
• Russia acted within the framework of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and that the invasion was therefore legitimate, with the “real war” beginning in 2014 rather than in 2022.
• There was no deportation of Ukrainian children, no concentration camps, and that children were relocated with parental consent and housed in “very good hotels,” while questioning the moral and professional integrity of the International Criminal Court.
• The EU and NATO are committing criminal acts, using Ukrainians as “cannon fodder,” and that widely documented events such as the Mariupol maternity hospital attack may have been staged.
• The Ukrainian government massacred its own population in Donbas, and that the legal definition of genocide could plausibly apply — reversing the usual attribution of responsibility.
⸻
Why This Matters
Each of these claims can, in isolation, be debated. The concern arises because they consistently point in the same direction:
• Russia’s responsibility is minimized or reframed as necessity.
• Ukraine’s agency and legitimacy are systematically undermined.
• Documented war crimes are denied, relativized, or attributed to staging.
• International institutions (UN, ICC, EU) are portrayed as dishonest or corrupt.
This is why critics do not see Baud’s work as neutral analysis. The problem is not that he challenges Western policy, but that his arguments repeatedly cross from explanation into implicit legitimation of Russia’s actions.
Understanding this distinction is essential if the discussion is to move beyond slogans about “free speech” and toward an honest debate about evidence, responsibility, and standards of analysis.
"The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims."
No, sir or madam, that is not the issue.
The European Convention on Human Rights is the issue.
"ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers."
All of Jacques Baud's opinions (thank you for stating them above) are plausible - "debatable" in your terms. They may be correct or incorrect, partially or entirely. It is of no matter either way because in the EU, expressing one's opinion is supposedly a protected human right. The freedom to hold an opinion, be the opinion right or wrong, is similarly a protected human right world-wide. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes:
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Jacques Baud is exercising a fundamental human right, and to punish him for doing so is a violation of those rights.
While fundamental human rights for the most part aren't unlimited, curtailing them is only legitimate when the well-being of others might be directly harmed by exercising the right. The law against libel is a well-known example. Jacques Baud, however, harms no one by expressing his opinions on various aspects of the Ukraine war. No harm, no foul as they say.
Col. Baud has been punished, not for harming or threatening anyone, but for putting forth a compelling narrative that differs from the official one. No one who cares about human rights can justify such punishment.
Your response is both generous and accurate. Thanks for providing it. I note it is to but one example of a spammers repeated comments pasting the same Al synthesised essay to a prompt seeking a critical view. Their response to your comment shows just how little the poster paster personally understand ot these sunctions. "Go to the courts" indeed! Which courts do they think have juristiction, and how do the sunctioned pay for counsel?
Baud can go to courts
Good job Pascal. If you find it useful, create a petition to be signed by us, your followers, as our support for Jacques Baud.
You should never be a "follower" of Pascal or anyone else. Don't be a "follower". That idea is part of what is wrong with current day culture, in the digital space and in real life.
In fact the mission of Pascal's work is to cultivate critical thinking - independent thinking - among all people. To think for yourself, be rational and fair, and don't merely respond to emotional activation by others. This is crucial for peace.
Everyone needs to lead themselves, with an active and clear mind.
What about telling that to substack and change the mistake there instead of telling people not to 'follow'.
If there is no other option then people 'follow'.
Its also interesting to me that the media language uses the term "followers", which is probably an unconscious choice of the hierarchically biased bourgeois mind exercising its intention to define all perception of reality. Would it do Pascal any good for his " followers" ( listeners, audience, fans, interlocutors, admirers, critics) to call themselves " comrades"?.
Yes, you describe the disjunct between real and commodifiable relationships very clearly, if I "follow" you correctly. People are so right to feel disgusted at the direction actually imposed upon them by the babel of the interests of the money grubbers and the fog of greed they constantly disperse over the common human aspiration to live in some kind of realistic and modest harmony rather than under the hammer and clamour of alien mall builders and dividend collectors.
Well, my leader is " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", and if thats also your flag, i'll go with you!(follow?)...😘
The entire digital media regime is meant to get you to hook yourself emotionally into content in extreme and unhealthy ways.
If you read something and find it to thought-provoking or useful input, you are discouraged from making a nuanced indication of this, and instead encourged to put the emotional knee-jerk of "loving" it with a heart.
If you meet someone in digital space, they cannot be a mere aquaintance, not you must "friend" them in the fhousands. But humans cannot actually have more than 50 actual friends, and cannot really properly know more than a couple houndred people.
If you want to sign up for a mailing list, you must indicate yourself by clicking on some button that declates you to be a "follower".
And so the story goes on. Because the attention economy of the internet requires subverting human emotions for money. But we need to be careful to not just adopt these things. It comes at a cost in degrading the quality of interaction and public discousrse.
In my opinion we should challenge these misleading use of frameworks rather than just accepting the misuse and adopting it.
Yes!!! 💯
Excellent! Promoted on my blog and on my Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/eric.hulsens
As much as I welcome and appreciate your initiative, I have deep doubts that the Swiss political elite still has enough backbone to stand up for the fundamental rights of its own citizens.
Danke Pascal Lottaz!
100% support for Jacques Baud excellent neutral work! We need the re-establishment of freedom of speech in EU!!!
I was also astounded to hear his carefully argued and researched writing called " propaganda". When you learn that Callous Kallas is one of the astute brains behind the defamation, it makes more sense. I hope he sues her bankrupt.
Kallas has no brains. Just a rabid attack dog. She would not know what was good research no matter what.
" astute brains"😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Many people defend Jacques Baud by saying he is merely “critical of the West” or “asking uncomfortable questions.” The issue, however, is not dissent as such, but the substance and structure of his claims.
Across interviews and writings, Baud repeatedly advances a set of core assertions that go far beyond critical analysis. Taken together, they form a coherent alternative narrative that closely mirrors Russia’s official justifications for the war.
In summary, Baud has argued that:
Russia’s invasion had only one valid explanation: the protection of Russian-speaking populations in Donbas — dismissing alternative explanations as invalid.
Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising was a Western-backed coup, producing “unelected authorities,” and that Western governments deliberately concealed this to legitimize the coup.
Ukraine was “forced” to create paramilitary units such as Azov, which he claims have systematically committed violence against civilians in Donbas since 2014.
Ukraine was preparing a military offensive against Donbas before 2022, implying that Russia acted pre-emptively.
Neo-Nazism is structurally embedded in Ukraine’s state apparatus, not merely present on the fringes, but as a permanent feature of its security and political institutions.
Russia acted within the framework of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and that the invasion was therefore legitimate, with the “real war” beginning in 2014 rather than in 2022.
There was no deportation of Ukrainian children, no concentration camps, and that children were relocated with parental consent and housed in “very good hotels,” while questioning the moral and professional integrity of the International Criminal Court.
The EU and NATO are committing criminal acts, using Ukrainians as “cannon fodder,” and that widely documented events such as the Mariupol maternity hospital attack may have been staged.
The Ukrainian government massacred its own population in Donbas, and that the legal definition of genocide could plausibly apply — reversing the usual attribution of responsibility.
Why This Matters
Each of these claims can, in isolation, be debated. The concern arises because they consistently point in the same direction:
Russia’s responsibility is minimized or reframed as necessity.
Ukraine’s agency and legitimacy are systematically undermined.
Documented war crimes are denied, relativized, or attributed to staging.
International institutions (UN, ICC, EU) are portrayed as dishonest or corrupt.
This is why critics do not see Baud’s work as neutral analysis. The problem is not that he challenges Western policy, but that his arguments repeatedly cross from explanation into implicit legitimation of Russia’s actions.
Understanding this distinction is essential if the discussion is to move beyond slogans about “free speech” and toward an honest debate about evidence, responsibility, and standards of analysis.
Thank you for leading on this noble and timely initiative, Pascal. I would recommend that the letter is forwarded to the Secretary General of Council of Europe (not to be confused with EU Commission), a fellow Swiss and an ex-collaborator of Mr Cassis, Mr Alain Berset. If you could clock an interview with him in your next podcast on the topic of sanctions, that would be an achievement.
Bravo Pascal !
Thank you Pascal fort his very needed initiative. Sanctions against these two people are a shameful action by the EU Commission. They have served and spoken out to false policies. Not to harm but to better Europe and its citizens. All these so called leaders are to be replaced by Motion of No-Confidence.
Europe needs true leaders, not vassals.
Well done Pascal, best of luck to Jacques
Pascal what can we do? It is the EU, allegedly representing 450 million people but ignoring any vestige of freedom of speech , which is putting us all in peril. I hope that Switzerland, perilously close to this NON NEUTRAL stance, can have an impact.
I wont hold my breath, Switzerland is not neutral and still controlled by the same "mafia" the ones we are not allowed to mention or critique are those who rules over us -- what laws have been made recently in your area of people you are not allowed to "hate" ??? If all people left the EU, stopped voting for it, stopped giving them legitimacy, stopped the support and openly declared they dont, and dont want to finance it etc etc -- just small steps they can find abhorant!! Will have an impact !! Support anti EU politicians, papers, narratives etc! Hold them up on their own laws !!
Paper gangters, legislation criminals.
Exactly.
First i restacked Pascals post.
Thats the least i can do.
I mailed a link to the post to a couple of journalists.
Now thinking what else i can do.
Thank you Pascal. ❤️
I wish there was a way for the rest of us that want to show our support could sign such a letter. The more that stand up now the better.
Bravo.
Count this tin foil hat in it too! Destroying a mans life, bank accounts, his means to live and even arrest people for speech but not for warprofiteering and pushing wars should be seen as nothing but terrorism and be fought by the terrorist laws!! If they can do it to him, they can do it to you and me and everyone trying to tell the truth!!
Its a very reason that i call EU a dictatorship!! Even an authoritarian tyranny!! Inside easa legal language, they use the word COMPLIANCE like all the time!! You must be compliant to the law, except when it comes to laws THEY dont want to obey!!