By adding German citizens Alina Lipp, Thomas Röper, and Hüseyin Doğru to its sanctions lists, the European Union has chosen an action that is shaking the foundations of the rule of law and press freedom in Europe. For the first time, media actors from within the EU are being targeted with the harshest instruments of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP): entry bans and existential asset freezes.
The EU’s goal is clear: countering hybrid warfare and combating disinformation that supports Russian aggression. But the method—sanctioning without a court judgment—turns the foreign policy tool into an instrument of political persecution.
The Sanctioned Actors and the Core Accusations
The three cases represent the spectrum of alleged Kremlin propaganda in the German-speaking world that the EU intends to hit with full force:
1. Alina Lipp: The Voice from Donetsk
- Role: German blogger and “peace journalist” who lives in the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine (Donetsk).
- Activity: Runs the popular Telegram channel “Neues aus Russland” (News from Russia) and publishes texts and videos in German and Russian.
- EU Accusation: Targeted and systematic dissemination of pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation about the Ukraine war. She is classified as a key actor in Russian information manipulation in Germany.
2. Thomas Röper: The Network Multiplier
- Role: German author, blogger, and purveyor of conspiracy theories. Operates the blog Anti-Spiegel and lives in Saint Petersburg, Russia.
- Activity: Is networked with the sanctioned Russian foreign broadcaster RT DE.
- EU Accusation: Spreading false claims (e.g., about the maternity hospital attack in Mariupol) and Russian government propaganda. He serves as a central voice of disinformation in the German-speaking area.
3. Hüseyin Doğru: The Structural Intermediary
- Role: German-Turkish journalist and founder of the media platform “red.” (AFA Medya A.Ş.).
- Activity: Dissemination of content via his media portal.
- EU Accusation: Close financial and organizational ties to Russian state propaganda organizations. The EU classifies his platform as part of a structural disinformation campaign.
Summary of Core Accusation: According to the EU, these individuals are systematically and deliberately involved in the Kremlin’s propaganda machine to manipulate public opinion in the EU and actively support the aggression against Ukraine.
The Erosion of the Rule of Law: Sanction Instead of Justice
The entry bans and asset freezes are existential measures that represent a profound restriction of freedom of movement and economic existence.
1. The Absence of Judicial Process
The sharpest criticism is the imposition of these massive restrictions on fundamental rights without prior ordinary court proceedings. CFSP sanctions are foreign policy tools—they are not a substitute for criminal prosecution in Germany.
Criticism: By declaring the affected individuals to be “supporters” or “responsible parties” by decree, the EU acts as prosecutor, judge, and executioner simultaneously. Such an act contradicts the core idea of the separation of powers and the rule of law.
2. The Risk of Political Persecution
The asset freeze, which factually constitutes a ban on practicing one’s profession and an existential deprivation, is imposed based on a political assessment of the content’s danger, not on a legal finding of factual claims or criminal guilt.
This creates a dangerous precedent: The EU risks using its sanctions lists as a tool for political persecution against media actors whose opinions are inconvenient but who have not yet been convicted.
The Attack on Press Freedom
The sanctions against German citizens due to their media statements represent a deep infringement of freedom of opinion and the press (Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).
- Dangerous Definitional Sovereignty: The EU sets itself up as the sole authority over the definition of “disinformation” and “propaganda” and decrees which dissenting narratives justify an existential penalty.
- Climate of Self-Censorship: This harsh approach creates a massive deterrent and self-censorship effect. Journalists who genuinely want to conduct critical research against the official line could be discouraged from doing so for fear of the existential risk of being sanctioned by their own Union.
The EU cannot simultaneously position itself as a defender of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and as the imposer of existential restrictions on fundamental rights against its own media actors without damaging the credibility of its own values.
Conclusion: The Litmus Test for the ECJ
The affected individuals have taken legal action to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). These proceedings will be a litmus test for the EU.
The strength of a democracy is not demonstrated by how harshly it acts against opponents of democracy, but by how strictly it maintains its own rule-of-law principles—fair justice, separation of powers, and press freedom—even under pressure. The answer to propaganda must be the strength of free debate and the rule of law, not the existential destruction of opponents by political decrees.