Imagine waking up one morning to find your bank account frozen, your credit cards declined, and every online platform you use suddenly inaccessible. No court ruling. No criminal charge. Just a short paragraph on an official EU website declaring you an obstacle to European values. This isn’t dystopian fiction—it’s already happening to people living right here in Europe and its closest partner countries.
A few years ago, most of us associated sanctions with distant regimes, oligarchs, or hostile governments. Today, the same mechanism quietly targets individuals who live among us, hold European passports or residency, and have committed no recognizable crime under national law. The weapon once pointed outward now points inward, and the implications should concern every person who values personal liberty.
When Foreign Policy Becomes Domestic Control
The story begins innocently enough. Sanctions were designed as a diplomatic tool—a way for the European Union to express disapproval and exert pressure without military force. For a long time they targeted foreign nationals, companies tied to sanctioned states, or individuals clearly operating outside European jurisdiction.
But something shifted in recent years. Slowly at first, then with increasing boldness, the list started including people who live and work inside the EU or its associated area. Analysts, activists, journalists—people whose only “offense” was expressing views that clashed with official narratives. Suddenly the line between external policy and internal discipline blurred.
I’ve followed these developments closely, and what strikes me most is the casual way this expansion has been normalized. There were no major public debates, no referendums, no dramatic legislative battles. Just administrative decisions taken behind closed doors, followed by brief announcements that few people read in full.
The Real Impact on Ordinary Lives
Being placed on the sanctions list isn’t a symbolic slap on the wrist. It is immediate, comprehensive, and devastating. Bank accounts get blocked within days. Payment cards stop working. Contracts—employment, rental, insurance—become impossible to maintain or enter into. Even basic daily transactions can become problematic when businesses fear secondary penalties for dealing with a sanctioned person.
Digital services often vanish overnight. Email providers, social media accounts, cloud storage—many companies based in or serving the EU market simply terminate access to avoid any risk. The person effectively becomes a ghost in the modern economy.
One person described it to me as “social and economic death without the courtesy of a funeral.” That phrase has stayed with me because it captures the cold efficiency of the system. No judge, no jury, no right to confront accusers—just administrative designation followed by automatic consequences.
Sanctions are not punitive and instead seek to bring about a change in the policy or conduct of those targeted.
Official EU sanctions explainer
Read that again. The EU itself admits the goal is behavioral change. Yet these are not convicted criminals being punished—they are citizens exercising rights supposedly guaranteed under European law. The contradiction is glaring, yet it persists because of a clever legal distinction.
The Legal Loophole That Changed Everything
Here lies the core issue. Sanctions fall under the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. This domain is deliberately shielded from the usual judicial oversight that applies to internal matters. National courts have very limited power to interfere, and even the European Court of Justice reviews these decisions only on narrow procedural grounds.
The court does not weigh whether the sanction is proportionate. It does not assess whether basic rights have been violated. It checks mainly whether the stated reasons are internally consistent and whether proper procedure was followed. If the justification paragraph contains no obvious factual error, the measure stands.
And if a sanctioned person somehow wins? The Council can simply issue a new listing with slightly reworded reasoning. The clock resets. The financial strangulation continues while a fresh legal battle begins. It is, in practice, a system with no real endgame for the individual.
- No requirement to prove criminal conduct
- No presumption of innocence
- No right to cross-examine evidence
- No meaningful proportionality test
- Possibility of repeated relisting after court losses
That list alone should give anyone pause. These are not minor procedural quirks—they are the systematic removal of protections we normally consider essential to a free society.
From External Pressure to Internal Discipline
Tools originally built for foreign policy rarely stay confined to foreign policy. History shows this pattern again and again. What begins as an emergency power against external threats eventually migrates inward. The EU sanctions regime is following the same trajectory.
Decades ago, Western governments used economic coercion against activists, journalists, and opposition figures in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Those measures were rarely questioned at home because the targets lived far away. Now the same playbook is being applied within Europe itself.
The irony is painful. People who spent years criticizing external sanctions as neocolonial or hypocritical are now experiencing the mechanism firsthand. The tool that once seemed distant has become uncomfortably close.
In my view, this is not an accident. When a powerful instrument exists, someone will eventually use it against domestic opponents. The temptation is too strong, especially in times of geopolitical tension and polarized public discourse.
The Bureaucratic Smugness That Should Alarm Us
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is the tone adopted by officials when questioned about these cases. There is no embarrassment, no defensiveness—just calm confidence that everything is perfectly legal and appropriate.
One government spokesperson recently explained that anyone operating in certain fields “must expect” sanctions if the Council decides so. The message is unmistakable: stay inside the approved lines or face consequences. No need to break any law. No need for due process. Just a political judgment call.
It will continue to happen, it has happened in the past, and anyone operating in this field must expect that it could also happen to them.
European government official
That is not the language of a democracy defending its values. That is the language of an administration reminding citizens who holds the real power.
What Happens When Dissent Becomes “Undesirable”
The current targets are mostly people active in geopolitics, alternative media, or activism on controversial international issues. But tools like this rarely remain limited to fringe voices forever. Once the precedent is set, the threshold for application can lower over time.
Today it might be an outspoken commentator. Tomorrow it could be a blogger, a professor, a trade unionist, or anyone whose public statements are deemed harmful to “European objectives.” The definition of harm is flexible, and the decision rests with a small group of officials.
Some readers might shrug and think, “Well, those people were pushing controversial views anyway.” That reaction is understandable but dangerous. The moment we accept extralegal punishment for unpopular opinions, we hand over the keys to our own freedoms.
Because what counts as controversial today can change tomorrow. Political winds shift. New crises emerge. Yesterday’s moderate position can become tomorrow’s threat. When the mechanism exists outside normal legal constraints, everyone becomes potentially vulnerable.
Is There Any Realistic Way Back?
Reversing this trend will not be easy. The Council enjoys broad discretion in foreign policy matters, and member states have shown little appetite for challenging the system. National politicians often prefer to defer to Brussels on these questions.
Legal challenges remain possible but limited. Human rights courts could eventually become involved, yet the exhaustion-of-domestic-remedies rule usually requires going through the European Court of Justice first—and we already know how narrow that review is.
The most realistic path may be political rather than judicial. Public awareness, sustained pressure, and vocal opposition from civil society could eventually force a reckoning. But that requires people to see the mechanism for what it is: not a targeted tool against “bad actors,” but a general-purpose instrument of control that can be redirected at any time.
- Raise awareness about the human cost of these measures
- Question officials publicly whenever possible
- Support independent voices before they disappear
- Demand transparency on how and why individuals are selected
- Push for stricter proportionality requirements in EU law
None of these steps are revolutionary. But they are necessary if we want to prevent the slow erosion of the legal protections we once took for granted.
The Bigger Picture: Freedom’s Fragile Edge
Looking back, it’s striking how quickly a foreign-policy instrument morphed into a mechanism for domestic discipline. The safeguards we built after centuries of struggle—due process, independent courts, protection against arbitrary power—can be bypassed surprisingly easily when the right label is attached.
In this case the label is “sanctions.” It sounds technical, even noble. But peel back the language and you find something far more troubling: the ability to punish without convicting, to isolate without judging, to silence without explaining.
I don’t believe most European citizens want to live in a system where political disagreement can trigger economic ruin. Yet unless we confront this development head-on, we risk sleepwalking into exactly that reality.
The chickens, as they say, always come home to roost. Tools created for distant enemies rarely stay distant. When we tolerate their use abroad, we invite their eventual return home. And when they arrive, they rarely ask permission before entering our own lives.
Perhaps the most sobering thought is this: the people affected right now are the canaries in the coal mine. They spoke out early, they challenged dominant narratives, and they paid a steep price. If we ignore their fate, we may discover—too late—that the same cage has been quietly built around the rest of us.
The question is no longer whether the mechanism exists. It does. The question is whether we will let it grow unchallenged. Because once a tool like this becomes routine, taking it away requires far more courage than putting it in place ever did.
Freedom isn’t lost in dramatic coups. It slips away through administrative convenience, polite announcements, and the quiet acceptance that “this is just how things are now.” If that sounds uncomfortably familiar, perhaps it’s time to pay closer attention.
