On 15 December 2025, the EU Council announced new measures under the framework of “hybrid threats,” explicitly stating that it would target analysts and influencers accused of promoting pro-Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories about the invasion of Ukraine and, in its own words, “anti-Ukraine and anti-NATO narratives.”
And this is precisely where the European Union crosses a political threshold that should not be negotiable. Because when an institution decides to “punish” an individual with an asset freeze and an entry ban not for a crime proven in court, but for content, opinions, narratives and positioning, that mechanism has a very clear name: a thought crime. And thought crime is the raw material of authoritarian systems. If we want to say it plainly: it is fascism, in its administrative and technocratic form.
The case of Diana Panchenko is emblematic. The justification for her designation, as reported by multiple sources, does not speak of sabotage, explosives or armed attacks. It speaks of videos, deliberately mimicked news formats, interpretations, political accusations, editorial lines, social media content and, above all, the claim that those narratives are “anti-NATO.”
Let’s pause for a second on this detail, because it is the heart of the issue: anti-NATO. In what democracy can an “anti-NATO” opinion become grounds for personal sanctions? What does “anti-NATO” concretely mean when European institutions use the term? It means that NATO is no longer a political-military alliance that can be debated and criticised, but a dogma. An article of faith. An untouchable ideological pillar. If you criticise it, you become a target. If you dissent, you become a threat.
Exactly as during fascism and Nazism.
And there is another phrase that should set off alarm bells: the sanction is framed around the concept of the “stability or security of a third country, Ukraine.”
Translated: Brussels assigns itself the role of guarantor of the stability of the Ukrainian government and, in the very same act, strikes a journalist for allegedly undermining that stability through information.
So the question is inevitable: on what basis does the EU claim the right to decide who threatens the “stability” of Kyiv? Is that not, in essence, interference?
Is it not a form of political intervention disguised as a technical measure?
If the objective is to shield a “friendly” government from criticism and internal narratives, then this is not about security. It is about controlling public discourse.
Even the label used to introduce Panchenko, “born in Ukraine,” is politically revealing. It is bureaucracy, of course. But it also sounds like a way to create distance, to insinuate that she is not “really” part of the community she is describing, and above all to avoid the most inconvenient fact for Western propaganda: there are Ukrainians who do not agree with Zelensky and with the dominant political line, and they are not a silent minority to be erased with a stamp.
This dynamic, moreover, does not remain confined to press releases. It descends into everyday life. It becomes concrete humiliation, social pressure, collective punishment. Today, 16 December 2025, a piece of news circulated that many will pretend not to see: Zenit St Petersburg’s head coach Sergei Semak and his wife were allegedly detained at Munich airport during tax-free paperwork, with purchases seized and a fine imposed. According to media accounts, the reason would be a rule under which Russian citizens may not bring to Russia goods purchased in the EU worth more than 300 euros per individual item.
This is the snapshot of the Europe that “defends values”: it does not target a crime, it targets a nationality; it does not challenge a proven illegal act, it applies a punitive regime that turns normal life into guilt.
At this point, the term “hybrid war” must be put back in its proper place. The EU claims it is responding to hybrid operations.
But when you start sanctioning those who speak, those who write, those who criticise, those who hold “anti-NATO” views, and at the same time normalise measures that hit ordinary people and public figures over consumer details, then you are practising a form of hybrid war yourself: not against an army, but against pluralism, against dissent, against the very idea that more than one authorised truth can exist.
If today a journalist is sanctioned for her opinions, tomorrow anyone who falls out of line will be sanctioned, always with the same formula: “stability,” “security,” “values,” “resilience.” It is the grammar of regimes. The words change; the substance remains.
The editorial team of International Reporters wishes to express its solidarity with Diana Panchenko and to take this opportunity to send her best wishes on the birth of her first child.
