On June 15, the Council of the European Union took a significant step in its ongoing response to the war in Ukraine by adding 34 individuals and 47 entities to its sanctions list. Among those targeted are ten figures accused of spreading sophisticated disinformation designed to sanitize and justify Russia’s military aggression. For those named, the consequences are immediate and restrictive: their assets within EU jurisdiction have been frozen, and European citizens and businesses are now legally barred from providing them with any form of financial support. This move represents a shift in European strategy, moving beyond traditional political and military targets to address the “soft power” influencers and behind-the-scenes organizers who help sustain the Kremlin’s narrative in the digital age.
Perhaps the most unconventional name on this list is Alexandra Jost, a Russian-American travel influencer known online as “Sasha Meets Russia.” On the surface, Jost cultivated a following through seemingly benign travel vlogs and cultural content. However, the EU found that this veneer of lifestyle blogging served as a strategic front for disseminating pro-Kremlin propaganda. By camouflaging her messaging within content about Russian traditions, she managed to attract a Western audience before pivoting toward inflammatory rhetoric—openly supporting the invasion of Ukraine and endorsing Russia’s neo-colonial territorial claims. Prior to these formal sanctions, platforms like YouTube and Instagram had already shuttered her accounts in March 2025, citing her repeated role in spreading harmful disinformation.
Jost’s defiance in the wake of these sanctions highlights the ideological divide that such measures aim to address. In a video posted to X, she made no effort to walk back her controversial claims, instead doubling down on her assertion that Crimea and the entirety of Ukraine belong to Russia. She frequently echoes official Kremlin terminology, referring to the full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation as a “special military operation.” In various posts, she has framed the conflict as a battle of “Good vs. Evil” and has mocked the state of Ukrainian democracy, conveniently ignoring that Ukraine’s decision to pause elections is a constitutional requirement under the current state of martial law. While Jost claims she is merely a patriot expressing her views, the EU investigation suggests a more calculated arrangement, pointing to evidence that she received funding from TV-Novosti, the parent company of the state-run media outlet Russia Today.
The sanctions also reach into the shadows of the influence industry, targeting figures like Maria Dudko, the director of the public relations firm “Limitless.” Unlike the very public persona of an influencer, Dudko operates behind the scenes, effectively acting as an architect for a disinformation network. According to the Council, her firm has been instrumental in managing Western influencers who amplify Kremlin talking points, effectively flooding the information landscape to destabilize Ukraine and sow discord among its allies. Her organization does not operate in a vacuum; it is financially backed by the Russian government through the Presidential Foundation for Cultural Initiatives, which was also sanctioned for its role in coordinating these foreign interference operations.
The list is rounded out by figures who wield ideological and religious influence, such as Bishop Georgiy Shevkunov, widely regarded as Vladimir Putin’s “personal confessor.” Shevkunov represents a different but equally powerful facet of the propaganda machine, as he uses the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church to provide a moral veneer for military violence. The Council alleges that he systematically promotes the narrative of “Nazism” in Ukraine to justify the invasion to a religious audience, painting the war as a defensive, divinely sanctioned mission. Through his sermons, media appearances, and his direct involvement in fundraising for Russian troops stationed in occupied Crimea, Shevkunov has turned religious rhetoric into a tool for state policy, earning his place on the EU’s restricted list.
Ultimately, these sanctions represent the EU’s attempt to confront a modern, decentralized, and often camouflaged form of warfare. By targeting not just the architects of war, but the influencers and “cultural” figures who sanitize it, the Council is attempting to degrade the infrastructure of disinformation that sustains the conflict. The freezing of assets and the blocking of financial lifelines serves as a warning that the “information war” is increasingly being treated as a legitimate theater of conflict. For those sanctioned, the digital stage has been significantly restricted, making it much harder to translate their propaganda into influence and serving as a clear signal that the EU is committed to curbing the reach of those who use their platforms to justify aggression.